Dyalike dags?

"Oh DOGS...sure...I like dags,"
So a few weeks ago I wrote about cycles. The title of the post was Are we what we eat?
You can read it if you want to catch yourself up. I am, for the remainder of this post, developing similar ideas.
In the bible it says that followers of Christ are to be "in the world but not of the world" which is to say, we are here, and a part of every thing around us, and should be, but we should not be identifiable to ourselves, God, or the world around us as being the same as things which are primarily of this world, such as materialism, pessimism, hopelessness, strife, wrath,unforgiveness, unhealthy conflict, any kind of abuse...the list is as long as our experiences, in a sense.
Well, I was thinking about the difference between being "of the world" in the sense just mentioned, and "of the world" in the sense that Adam and Eve were originally of the world. In this case I am referring largely to the aforementioned post Are we what we eat? Let me better explain...
We are made from the dust of the earth. Whether you are a creationist, evolutionist, grocery bagger, or whatever, this point is more or less indisputable, and in many cases should settle some disputes between the creationist and evolutionist, in fact. But I digress.
So, we are made from the dust of the earth, which is to say, matter, such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, etc. This was a fact before the "fall of man" had ever occurred; which is to say, God thought this fact about us was/is "very good". From here on I will refer to this sense of "of the world" as "of the earth" because "earth" is perhaps more physical than "world".
Also before the fall of man, God intended for us to do two things (among many others not mentioned here). The two I am thinking of are work (we were intended to not strife, but work work for our food), and we were intended to be a sort of leader of the rest of creation. I have not done a word study on this, but I believe it infers a stewardship of the rest of creation. It is often said that we were given "dominion over the animals".
Without explaining a whole lot of what I mean, I will just say that I think we have really failed at this, all of us. It is important to remember that the original plan was for all of us, which is the reason that almost all of culture misinterprets "dominion over nature" or "stewardship". When Adam and Eve were cast from the garden because of sin, two curses came, hard toil with the land, and pain in childbirth. Since that day people in general have been fighting against these two things. What we have ended up doing is trying harder and harder to escape from hard labor. Labor saving is the largest theme of not onlycorporations, but all of industry and domesticity.
What we have done is try to isolate ourselves more and more from nature. We have tried our very hardest to set ourselves apart from creation, and to act not only apart from it, but in spite of it. Retirement was never the plan. The original plan for us was to be "of the earth". Being "of the world" today includes attempting toseparate ourselves from "nature". In our attempts at labor saving, and division of people and the earth, we have, in the words of Wendell Berry "ended up occupying more and more land to the East of Eden". The results areridiculous uses of fossil fuel energy, rampant discontentedness, and the invention of the idea of "waste" or "away". As in, we throw our "waste" "away".
I think the best place to start, in trying to fulfill the original plan of our being stewards of the rest of creation, is to realize that, as much as we fight it, we will always be made from the dust of the earth, and to the dust of the earth we will return. We have to realize that if we are not to be of the world, we must consider ourselves a part of the earth, that it was God's original plan that we would be
intimately acquainted with his creation. We need to get our hands dirty.
What originally started me developing these ideas, which I'm sure are not very clear here because they are not completely clear in my head yet, was Jon and Amanda's dog. Ally, the dog, will sit in the backyard for hours, and wait for squirrels. When a breeze comes, you can tell she enjoys it. She looks around. She is not preoccupied. I
know this may sound naive, but we can't be stewards of creation if we are not intimate with it, if we do not consider ourselves literally a part of it. We cannot just visit nature, or enjoy nature, we must always be in it.
Another quote from Wendell Berry:
"Let's say you were from somewhere else, seeing this Earth from space for the first time. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be satisfied with that view; I'd want to get closer, walk around on it, even get down on my hands and knees. That's how I prefer to see the Earth."

It is important for me to mention that I don't think this is possible without having a restored relationship to the one that created all of this. My previous words assume that there is such thing as truth, and I believe that this is absolute. This implies that there is someone, somewhere, that can perfectly perceive reality, the way it actually is. Since I believe this to be the case, and that this person is God, I believe the only way to pursue fixing the problem I've described is to first fix our misperceptions of God, and not only that, but let His be our perception of reality, which is only possible by knowing Him as He is.