In his new book, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, Glen Greenwald argues that a belief in Good and Evil leads to monstrous behavior, because once we identify ourselves as warriors for Good, fighting Evil, there is no behavior which cannot be justified.

His argument certainly seems to hold true with regards to the Bush administration, but it also has deep roots in human history and in western religious thought in general.

I'm particularly interested because the question of good and evil is quite possibly the most fundamental issue in the Christian worldview—more basic than the ideas of salvation, Heaven, or Hell.

Without the concept of evil, there would be no need of Hell, Heaven would be a given, salvation would be unnecessary. Most of the Christian worldview is wrapped around the ideas of good and evil.

This is peculiar, because the traditional starting-place for this struggle is the story of the fall—of Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden—a story that is persistently misinterpreted in religious circles.

I'll tell you two versions. The first is the traditional tale, the second will be the one found in the Bible.

The traditional version goes something like this (with minor variations):

God originally put Adam and Eve in a beautiful garden, where they could have anything they wanted—the fruit from all the trees—as much as they liked. There was only one catch.

In order to give them free will, God had to provide a choice for them. So he commanded them not to eat from just one of the trees. The point of this was to see if they would obey this simple command.

They disobeyed, and brought evil into the world, by committing the first sin—disobedience. Their punishment was to be kicked out of the garden, to have painful childbirth, to be forced to till the soil, for women to be subject to the authority of men, etc.

Ever since then, humans have been totally depraved, thus requiring salvation in order to escape the punishment of Hell, which we so richly deserve.

There are, of course, many modifications of this story in different branches of Christianity, but this is the gist.

How does this measure up to the tale told in the Bible?

First of all, the tale in the bible is a folk tale: a kind of parable. It is not meant to be taken literally, and it signals this fact in several ways.

I'll just point out the obvious ones. First, there's a talking snake—Br'er Snake, if you will. This is certainly a signal as to the kind of story we are being told. If that isn't enough to clue us in, the main characters names should do it. "Adam", literally, means "Human". And "Eve" means "Life", which the narrator tells us is due to the fact that she is the "mother of all living" (that is, "Woman").

So we're not being told a literal story, about an historical event, but a symbolic story, about humanity in general.

And the point of that story? The text has already given us the key to the interpretation: it's in the names.

The first tree mentioned is the "Tree of Life". To eat the fruit of this tree is to have life. Pretty simple, yes? The humans are allowed to eat of this tree as much as they like—that is, they are allowed to partake of life, as much as they like.

The second tree, the one that causes all the trouble, is not called "the tree of death". Rather, it is called "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".

At this point, some of my readers are going to experience interference patterns, based on the traditional interpretations, so I'm going to resort to a chart, in order to make things crystal clear:

Element Name Meaning Fruit To Eat Fruit The Man Adam Mankind (Humanity) n/a n/a His Wife Eve Womankind n/a n/a First Tree The Tree of Life The Source of Life Life To Have Life Second Tree The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil The Source of the Knowledge of Good and Evil The Knowledge of Good and Evil To Know (or Learn About) Good and Evil

That's what the story says. (Yes, by the way, it is sexist. But I don't have to endorse the sexism, since I'm not a fundamentalist.)

And what is God's attitude toward the second tree in the story? He tells them that it is lethal, and that they should not eat its fruit. In addition, both God and Br'er Snake agree that knowing about Good and Evil is the province of the gods.

The basic message, at this point, couldn't be clearer: Good and Evil are not the business of human beings. Such knowledge is reserved for the gods. Leave it alone.

Of course, in the story they don't. They eat of the tree, immediately start making silly moral judgments (they become embarrassed of their bodies, which God had created) and begin playing judgment games: blaming each other, Br'er Snake, and, finally, God, for their guilt (another new emotion)—all direct results of buying into a worldview of Good and Evil, right and wrong.

The end of the story hints that this new worldview leads to hierarchy and slavery, especially if we try to fit the subject of the tale into human history. Humans fell from the life of hunter-gatherers, into early civilization, with its hierarchy, slavery, agriculture-based economy, and deep sense of Good and Evil.

It may or may not be possible to take the interpretation that far, but it is certain that the story is against humans pretending to know Good and Evil.

Even though I'm not a Bible-believing fundamentalist, or even a Christian anymore, I can still see deep wisdom in a traditional text. Believers, of course, may have more trouble. They have to stretch and twist the story until it fits their theology. Until it comes out close to the first version I told you.

But I think the story itself is much wiser than the traditional misinterpretation.

And, I think that current events show us that such ancient wisdom may be sorely needed in our times.

Not because it's holy, but because it's human.

At least, that's what I think today.