I would like to start with something we can all recognize: nature. Nature is where we are; we are standing in it. It's the only tangible substance for which we can begin to observe our reality. We call it creation because (at least to us) it somehow happened and is here, therefore it is created. Because our human condition seems only to allow us to view things that are as things that happened, we call our world or universe creation. For now then, I will settle for the fact that we are here and surrounded by physical things that are, and therefore refer to them as nature.

Now, if we assume the universe is chaos, then it in itself would have no laws, at least as far as we could tell. Certainly if it does, we don't know them. But within nature there are at least some laws we can recognize. Because we are physical elements here in this place (earth) we are subject to these laws. They are the physical laws, the most obvious of which is gravity. However cerebral we try to fancy ourselves we cannot be apart from these laws any more than could a rock.

Certainly most all of these laws can be learned through empirical methods. For instance, three men walk up to a cliff and the last two having seen the first one fall to his death, stop and recognize the danger. But what we want to explore is why having discovered this the third man does not push the second man over the edge just for laughs. This decision not to harm the second man is where some moral standard has taken place. Like any species in nature, the human race at this point of primal development was not only concerned with the survival of the individual, but of its family or group as well. I think it fair to say then that the instinct to survive and to protect is a priori to the human nature.

Paul Tillich in his Systematic Theology observes that "living beings are successful attempts of nature to actualize itself in accordance with the demands of objective reason." This corresponds to Kant's observation that reason is the lawgiver of nature. Therefore in being actualized by nature we are a phenomena or creation of it. Although we are subject to the same laws as nature, we are free-will beings and must make choices from a self-imposed rational law. The a priori faculties to impose these laws on ourselves gives us our instinct to survive. But even more they provide us with the emotional base in which we begin to develop a sense of right and wrong. That is what's harmonious or unharmonious with the cycle of nature. Fear may be learned through empirical methods. For instance, the men at the cliff having discovered the danger of defying gravity learn to fear or respect that particular law. Love on the other hand is a priori. Such as the love of a mother for her newborn or that of families. That would be the unconditional love called Agape; the same kind of love God has for His creation. Love is also creative. This is the love that generates life; the physical love for each other called Eros. So it is in nature that our feelings or instincts are born. Human morality is our ability to cope and live harmoniously with nature. This is not to be confused with victorian pietism or a modern Judeo-Christian morality. Morality as I define it here is harmony with all that is. It is the Tao kept in balance by the Yin and the Yang; that is negative and positive principles kept in a delicate balance. Too often people only think of morality as "righteousness" or "pure goodness", but these things are all subjective. One man's "goodness" pressed upon another is most likely to be taken as tyranny. Sometimes good intentions can upset a very fragile balance. What is moral is not what meets our human standards of behavior, but what is ultimately good for creation as a whole.

Nature then is a cycle of life and death (or rather transformation if we include the inanimate) in all things that belong to it. Out of it we were created and in it we live, die or change according to its laws. The cycle is self-sufficient and its laws protect both it and the creations within it. When anything chooses no longer to be subject to its laws it will perish. This is evidence then, that nature is a moral order.

If a leap of faith can be made at this point to recognize that this moral order or creative force is at work in the universe, then what do we call it? Ancient people had no definite name for this creator. The Semites or ancient Hebrews called it "elohim" (the Gods) or "YHWH", a name some have said too sacred to speak, meaning Lord. Lao Tzu says,"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." Even in the Old Testament when Moses asks, "Whom shall I say sent me?" the answer is "Tell them I am what I am" (Exodus 3:13-14). Whatever this universal logos is we can at least have faith that it is lord over all things. So we call this lord our God. This is why in faith we say God is the creative force that designed the universe.

We know however, that whatever we put into words cannot fully capture the eternal essence of God. Ultimately how we begin to understand God and His Way is through faith; not by speaking, but by listening. We listen not in language but in spirit. The Tao Te Ching teaches we are to be inactive and to follow the Tao (the Way). And the teachings of the prophet Isaiah (64:6) tell us all of our deeds are but filthy rags, that only by grace are we reconciled to God; nothing we say or do affects God, but rather by following God our actions are affected by Him (cf. Romans 4:1-13 and Ephesians 2:8-10) and only then are our actions considered righteousness. In nature there is only one Tao, and whatever we do not in accordance to the will of the Creator is only a futile attempt to assume power only God is capable of understanding. This action then, as the Tao Te Ching and the Bible point out, is the very thing separating us from God. Obviously this isn't meant to say we are to be lumps of inactive flesh, but that we should be still and obedient to the will of God. Then our actions will be of God and not of our own, and therefore fruitful in all things.

In summary then, it's fair to say we humans are innately moral and morality is founded in our Creator who guides us. But even if one were still to argue that there is no innate human morality, I would say, if you cannot embrace and live a life according to the Way of God, you are placing yourself outside the natural order--and that is a lonely and volatile place.

If this then is enough to explain who God is, the next step to understanding our relationship with God is best revealed in the first books of Genesis, the topic of the next chapter.

We open on two men sitting at a table in a pub. In the midst of conversation and smoke it comes to one's attention that the other is a Christian. The usual discussion about evolution and such takes place and of course goes nowhere. But then the issue becomes personal when the topic of original sin erupts.

"So let me get this straight" the unbeliever asks leaning towards the Christian in contempt,"you're trying to tell me that God made man and then placed him in a garden with this tree of knowledge of good and evil, told him if he ate from it he would die, and didn't tell him why?" He lights a cigarette and exhales in disgust. Instantly the Christian leans in and presses his finger down firmly on the table and canting his head stares his inquisitor firmly in the eyes,"God gave him a choice man, and the dude chose knowledge over the tree of life..." The unbeliever interrupts,"What kind of god would condemn a man to death for making an uninformed choice without giving him a second chance?"

"It was a spiritual death, man. The dude had a choice and he chose wrong, so now we all live in a perpetual state of sin. It's in the Bible."

"Great, so now you're telling me that because some guy was set up and ate a bad apple that I'm a sinful person. I don't like your God."

The conversation continues to get more heated and like the smoke rising out of their ashtray the message of scripture begins to vanish slowly and quietly into the noises of the bar.

Is it any wonder why unbelievers are seldom convinced that the Word of God is worth taking seriously? The minute we begin to try to explain God's will through literal, textual interpretations of the Bible we reduce all understanding of God to a limited human level, and it becomes quite vulnerable to attack even by the most modest intellect.

Faith is not ignorance. It is belief in the unseen. Assuming that we can understand God through a literal reading of scripture is not corroborative with the original intentions of scripture. But through faith we can begin to let scripture speak to us from beyond the written words. Like poetry, scripture can take us beyond the page and into an eternal truth beyond mere words.

The first step to understanding how to solve the problem of the Genesis story is to stop trying to read it as either a literal history or even a moralistic tale. It is a classic myth that reveals to us a profound truth. It's important to understand here the importance of the true definition of the word myth. The earliest definition of myth is quite different from what it has evolved into. Webster's defines it: a traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon. In theological studies it is a literary form that helps to express transcendent realities and truth in terms better understood in this world. The issue is not what is historical fact, but what is theological truth.

Adam represents the human race. As we began to awaken to certain knowledge we began to separate ourselves further and further from God. No longer content to live in the natural conditions as they were governed by God, we became agriculturalist and city builders. The original sin was a sin of arrogance. Thus Cain the agriculturalist kills Able the nomadic sheep herder. The punishment for Adam's sin was ultimately a separation of his own will from God's in an attempt to be like God. This futile attempt to remove ourself from the order God has set forth can only result in death.

This isn't meant to say planting and building are inherently evil, only that these are the earliest signs of how man began to attempt to control nature and build cities glorifying himself as in the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). But one cannot ignore the fact that a lust for land and possessions has never ceased. The Buddha in the first two of his Four Noble Truths makes it clear the result of these passions: All life is suffering. All suffering is caused by desire. Like Adam, our vanity is the author of our toil.

Another source paralleling the message of the fall is found in the Chuang Tzu:

"There was a time when the wisdom of the men of old was perfect. When? When they were not yet conscious that things existed. Next, they knew that there were things, but did not attempt to distinguish them. Next, they distinguished things, but did not try to label some 'right' and others 'wrong.' As soon as such judgments were passed, the integrity of the Tao was violated and prejudice came into being."

This is a clear testimony of the results of "eating" from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The early books of Genesis should not be taken lightly, but to take them literally is to do just that. Certain literal approaches to the most ancient of biblical texts may not only miss the point, but be harmful to one's spiritual well being.