Misplaced Metaphysical Dualism

[apothanein kerdos]

WSB, you keep asking how I can accuse you of being a Gnostic.

The reason is quite simple; your beliefs rely on misplaced metaphysical dualism, and therefore the implications of the beliefs inevitably lead to Gnosticism.

Prove this from scripture. In fact, in the new testament, Jesus said that a kernel of wheat must die before it can grow into a new plant. Adam and Eve ate fruit from other plants in the garden. Didn't those fruit have to die to be eaten? Didn't the herbs have to die in order to be eaten? Why would God create a tree called "The Tree of Life", ( which had the power to grant immortality even AFTER the fall), why would he create such a tree if man was already physically immortal in and of himself? Man was supposed to eat from the Tree of Life to maintain his life(See Genesis 3). If not for the fall, Adam and Eve would have had free access to the Tree of Life, and would never have died, but God said after the fall that man might eat of the tree and live forever, thus God chased man out of the Garden, because God did not want man to live forever in this fallen state.(Gen. 3:22). Had it not been for the fall, Adam and Eve would have lived forever, but not by virtue of their own selves, but by the fruit of the Tree of Life...

This is your attempt to show that man was inherently mortal. The Tree of Life was not meant to keep man mortal, instead it was meant as a symbolic tree. The tree of life allowed fallen man the ability to live forever. It makes a reapperance in Revelation. If it is on the new earth and we do not eat of it, do we die? OF course not. Instead the tree shows the substance of life that flows from God. Man was made to be immortal, to enjoy enternity with God. You are supporting the idea that God made a fallible creation, one where those made in His image die off...meaing His image is fallible. This is your attempt to devalue the material world, which is Gnostic.

Ok, and tell me how anything I said violates your little diagram. I am not a diety, and thank God for that. I don't want to be God and don't want to be a "little god". I am a man, and a creation beneath God. I have never said anything that contradicts or denies that.

Proper metaphysical dualism teaches this:

God

_________

Creation

This means that all things created, including the spiritual realm, on below God. Ontologically it is all the same. Though there are different levels when we throw man into the picture, in the broad scheme of things, we are all the same. Man is significant, but he is still a creature. It would look something like this:

God

____________

Man

Animals

Earth

Though man holds more significance than animals because we are in God's image, ontologically we are the same and in no way more spiritual or on a higher realm of creation. The way you paint the picture is like this:

God

___________

Spiritual realm

---------------

Physical realm

This is misplaced metaphysical dualism. You state strongly that the spirit is more important than the body. The implications of this is that Christ could not have inhereted a physical body, God could not have created us, and the spirit would be equal with God. I know, I know, I know...you don't claim these things and you deny them. The problem with that is your denial of them contradicts your ultimate belief in the superiority of the spirit. You are holding mutually exclusive beliefs.

Implication #1 - Christ could not have inhereted a physical body.

If the body is lesser than the spirit, then Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate. Instead of Jesus being God incarnate, He would instead have to be a human being that inhereted the Spirit of God. The reasoning for this is that if the spirit is more important than the body, if it is on a higher spiritual plain of existence, then Christ could not contaminate himself. It would make Christ lesser than a spirit and therefore less than God. To put on a physical form would mean he was putting on an unecessary outfit.

Implication #2 - God could not have created us.

We know that we are created in physical bodies. If the physical body is lesser than the spiritual world, then God could not have created us. It would make no sense for Him to create our spirits and then place them in something that is ontologically lower or lesser in significance. It would also make no sense as to why He would give us physical bodies later in the afterlife. This would, by definition, make God evil. Therefore, He could not have created the world...it must have been created by some evil aeon that trapped our created spirits in physical bodies. That is the only logical implication of your belief. It is the only way to truly remain consistent in what you believe. If you choose to believe the spirit is higher and mor eimportant than the body, then you cannot believe God created the body or that it is in the image of God; this would be a contradiction.

Implication #3 - You make our spirits equal with God.

I know, you don't claim it, but this is an implication of your belief. Again, quoting from Wittmer:

"When we elevate one element of creation above another (such as spirit over matter) we tend to make the superiority absolute. We easily think that there is something intrinsically valuable about our immaterial nature that trumps our physcial side, so we assign it qualities, such as immortality and inviolable goodness, that belongs to God alone. Rather than recognize that both elements belong to creation, we seek to push our spiritual nature into the Godhead. After all, we remind ourselves, God himself is a spirit.

Now you make a weak attempt at a response with this:

goodness. When did I ever say or remotely imply I was a member of the Godhead? You people have really taken this an run wild here. My huma spirit is a created, finite entity. my soul is a created finite entity. my body is a created finite entity. In terms of power, authority, pressence,e tc. HOWEVER, scripture plainly states that both believer and unbliever will exist forever from now on. Either in the lake of fire, or in heaven. This has nothing to do with deity, it is just a fact of how we are made.

Now, let's use logic (I know, you hate that). Wittmer is saying when we call our spirits immortal and eleveate it to the "eternal" state and treat it as better, we have already placed ourselves equal with God. Our spirits are not eternal but instead rely on God to exist. Our spirits are also mortal. As seen from Galatians, we are to die to ourselves, that is, let our spirit die and have Christ put a new one in us. This is the sanctification process. This isn't some weird thing I have come up with; this was taught by almost all the Church fathers and has been taught to this day. Immortality is a trait that belongs solely to God. When we place it on our spirits, we place ourselves in God's chair.

Now, let us look at what you have said:

Hold on brother, you can't take this old body of clay with you, because it IS inferior and CANNOT recieve the kingdom of God.

The scripture is plain as day that we are tripartide beings our own selves, and it is also evident that if our body were as important as our spirit, then we wouldn't need a NEW body at the resurrection. The body is obviously not eternal, therefore it cannot possibly be as important as the soul and spirit.

You have been placing the spirit above the body. The implilcations are seen above. you may not believe the implications, but if you are to have a consistent belief, you have to draw those conclusions. Otherwise, you contradict yourself.

[apothanein kerdos]

Counting number of times you change what I say by adding to it or drawing unintended conclussions.

1) I never supported the idea God made a fallible creation.

I have not devalued the material world either. You've changed what I said, and as well failed to even respond to a crucial point I made, which was that the fruits and herbs adam and eve ate had to die in order to be eaten. So this makes 1 time you changed what I said, and attacked me based on something I never said.

This is what I mean about refusing to think. I am saying the implications of your belief lead to this. Now, since you apparently don't know what the word "implications" means, let's look at the definition:

1) To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly: evidence that implicates others in the plot.

2) To have as a consequence or necessary circumstance; imply or entail: His evasiveness implicated complicity.

This means that though you may not say you believe in something, one of your beliefs naturally leads to that denied belief.

Take for instance athiests. They may say they believe in morals but no absolute God....therefore the implication of this belief (no God) is that there is no reason for morals. They will say they believe in morals but cannot justifiably say why they believe in morals because the implication of their earlier belief prevents morals from occuring.

Likewise, you may say that you support God did not make an infallible creation, but the implication of what you saying (that Adam and Eve were not made immortal) is that God made a falllible creation.

As for the herbs...maybe you should do a study on what life is. Scientifically, yes, herbs are alive. Animals are alive. Biblically they really are not. Life is that which provides for conscience or subconscience thought. Even the most distorted human has this quality. Herbs do not...therefore they do not "die" or "live," they simply exist.

2) Where did I say this? I didn't. To say that the spirit of man is more important than the body of man does not require the invention of "realms". What are we doing here? Making a video game or something? Goodness. You have to accuse me of something though, so may as well let you invent the argument. Since you can read my mind and everything, and know what I believe and don't believe before I even type it, lead on...

*sigh*

Again, please try to think. The stuff I am saying here I have said to 14 and 15 year old high schoolers and they had no problem following along. I am not saying that to insult you, I am merely pointing out the fact that you are refusing to use your mind. Certainly you have a better retention and understanding ability than high schoolers.

You said, and I quote:

Hold on brother, you can't take this old body of clay with you, because it IS inferior and CANNOT recieve the kingdom of God.

By placing the body on an inferior level you place it on a different ontological realm of creation. This doesn't mean that they exist in two different areas but instead that one is inherently higher than the other. That is what I am addressing. You are placing the spiritual realm above the physical realm. This is a primitive concept...

2b) I must be extremely stupid,

If the shoe fits....

because I fail to see how you arrive at any of this based on anything I have said. I do not place the spirit in a seperate realm from the Body, any more than I do apples and oranges. Again you just made that part up.

Rule number one when you try to enter a debate: Make sure you understand what philosophies are being discussed.

Rule number two: make sure you understand the terminology.

You place the spiritual world above the physical world. If you deny this, then you have to recant your statement saying that the body is inferior to the spirit.

However, you will stick with the body being inferior to the spirit. With this, Christ could not have inhereted a physical body because it would have made Him "lesser." He should have saved our spirits and forgone the shedding of blood. The Gnostic salvation makes more sense under your area of belief.

3) God became man, in the flesh. God became incarnate, that is, part of the created universe. Not only did he have a man's body while he was here, but he had a man's spirit and a man's soul. He was 100% man, and at the same time did not cease to be 100% God. That is the incarnation. Jesus was not a man "possessed" by the Spirit of God. Jesus WAS God in the flesh. Am I speaking english here? or what?

Let's look at what I said again:

Implication #1 - Christ could not have inhereted a physical body.

If the body is lesser than the spirit, then Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate. Instead of Jesus being God incarnate, He would instead have to be a human being that inhereted the Spirit of God. The reasoning for this is that if the spirit is more important than the body, if it is on a higher spiritual plain of existence, then Christ could not contaminate himself. It would make Christ lesser than a spirit and therefore less than God. To put on a physical form would mean he was putting on an unecessary outfit.

In other words, if what you are saying is true, the logical conclusion is that Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate.

Um...can you show this scripturally or logically? God is all powerful. If He wanted to, he could have made our bodies remote entities from our spirts, or who knows what exotic laws he could have made, and WITHOUT violating his nature. After all, creation is less than God and is subject to God.

*sigh*

If our bodies are lesser than our spirits, then there was no reason for God to make bodies for us. Why did He make bodies if they are lesser? This would make Him evil because He would be putting us in something that is inherently flawed.

Then by the same logic, it makes no sense why you would get in a car, which is of lesser value than you are, and drive to work. Similarly, by your logic, it makes no sense why you would buy another car after the first one broke down.

This is a faulty analogy. Both the spirit and body are made in the image of God. A car is not. When I get into a car, though I am more significant than the car, I am not ontologically different. THe only thing that makes me more significant than the car is that I am in the image of God, both body and spirit. What makes me "no better" than the car is that I exist on the same realm of creation.

Thus we come back to the spirit. The body is not just "some car" that we get in. It is not just "some tool." It is an inherent part of who we are, made in the image of God, and meant to be redeemed along with our spirit. It is just as important and on an equal level. To deny this leads to the three implications I wrote.

ow is it a contradiction? You've given no such evidence, from scripture or logical analysis, to suggest a contradiction.

Again, if you even wish to debate this, you need to start thinking.

Let us look at what I said:

It is the only way to truly remain consistent in what you believe. If you choose to believe the spirit is higher and mor eimportant than the body, then you cannot believe God created the body or that it is in the image of God; this would be a contradiction.

If the spirit is higher than the body then there is no need for the body. God could have made us as spiritual beings existing in a spiritual place. There was no need for the physical world. If there is no need, then God would not create it, it goes against His nature. There is no purpose in the physical world if the spirit is more important. There is no purpose for my job. There is no purpose behind having a faimly. There is no purpose in reproducing. There is no purpose in life if the spirit is the highest ontological level humans have.

5) Are we using a different definition of the word "eternal" or something? Where did I say man doesn't need God to exist? noidea.gif The Bible says that believers have eternal life, and in another place, "ever lasting life". But I didn't say man can exist without God. What made you draw that conclussion? Again I ask who's posts are you responding to? You keep putting words, nay entire false doctrines, into my mouth.

Great, then you just admitted that the body and spirit are equal.

Again, what I am teaching you high schoolers, who are freshman, have been able to understand. It is not because you are stupid, it is because you are refusing to listen and learn. For goodness sakes, I could quote to you the early Church Fathers on this issue, as well as some amazing teachers...but you won't listen to them because you buy into this arrogant position of, "All I need is the Bible..." as if your interpretation is infallible. So, either come here to learn, because you need it, or don't come at all.

[Kabowd]

Here's a tip for when you're responding and trying to use quotes: Use a maximum of 6 quotes per reply. If you go over that, it messes them all up. You can respond in several posts this way and it will be alot easier to read separate replies than reading one long one where they are all jumbled. (this is addressed to everyone, not anyone in particular).

[apothanein kerdos]

Ok seriously, please quit insulting my intelligence. 'tis really getting old.

And no I have not refused to use my mind. In fact, I have opted to USE it.

I'm glad you picked up on those. Though they seem like insults (and I am sorry for that), those statements were placed in there for a reason.

By using your mind you are admitting to elevating it to the importance of your spirit. If your spirit was higher, you would have negated what I said and instead opted to say, "I would rather rely on my spirit than my mind." The mind is part of the physical part of the body. By relying on it you are relying on something "lesser" than your spirit. Now, you can come out and use the tool analogy again, but keep in mind that we are made in the image of God (both spirit and mind). Are you really doing to say that the image of God is nothing more than a tool to be used?

Biblically they ARE alive. You just don't seem to know the Bible. As Jude uses an analogy in which he speaks of a tree that has withered fruit, is twice DEAD, plucked up by the roots.

Jude 1:12

These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

John 12:24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

Ok, how can a seed die if it was never alive? Jesus said this, not me, and he was using it as an analogy to teach truth. God never uses lies to teach truth.

You are missing what I'm saying. What I said is that they are alive scientifically in that there is a beginning and an end. They can grow, they need substance to remain alive. They are not inanimate, therefore they are alive. However, they are not alive in the sense that they have personality, need communion with other plants, can grow in education, or develop culture. In other words, they were made with the sole purpose to be used for consumption. Therefore, in the pre-fall world their "death" would not matter because they were made to be consumed. Their purpose was for pleasure, for consumption. They were created for humans.

Humans, on the other hand, were created to be immortal. It would make no sense for humans to be created only to later die in a perfect world. You missed a vital part of my analysis, so let us go over it again:

This is what I mean about refusing to think. I am saying the implications of your belief lead to this. Now, since you apparently don't know what the word "implications" means, let's look at the definition:

1) To involve or connect intimately or incriminatingly: evidence that implicates others in the plot.

2) To have as a consequence or necessary circumstance; imply or entail: His evasiveness implicated complicity.

This means that though you may not say you believe in something, one of your beliefs naturally leads to that denied belief.

Take for instance athiests. They may say they believe in morals but no absolute God....therefore the implication of this belief (no God) is that there is no reason for morals. They will say they believe in morals but cannot justifiably say why they believe in morals because the implication of their earlier belief prevents morals from occuring.

Likewise, you may say that you support God did not make an infallible creation, but the implication of what you saying (that Adam and Eve were not made immortal) is that God made a falllible creation.

If God created His image to be solely temporal, to end, then it would destroy the purpose in His creation. His image, being perfect, cannot die. It was only until the fall that we began to see the effects of death on humans. He tells Adam and Eve that they would surely die (if they ate the forbiddin fruit) and this is prior to the fall. This means that they understood what death was, they knew it was a process of ceasing to be. The death spoken of in Genesis, that comes about per the fall, is one where man is seperated from God, his culture, and himself...as well as a literal physical death placed onto man.

Getting back to the original point, because God made both the body and soul to exist at the same time, we cannot justifiably say that the body is ontologically less than the soul. Both are in the created realm and both are in the image of God; both are of equal importance. If the physical body is less than the spirit then we run into two problems:

1) Why did God place us in bodies to begin with?

2) Why will He place us in bodies again when He returns?

Under your philosophy, neither of these problems can be resolved.

One which you have yet to refute from scripture.

Hey buddy, as I recall, your the one who started talking about all the metaphysical ontological etc, etc, words that appear nowhere in scripture, but are constructions of man trying to put his $0.02 into the Bible instead of reading what is actually written there.

This is a "poor man's" way out of an argument. "The word is not found in the Bible, therefore the concept does not exist." This is the same argument anti-Trinitarians use. Obviously, this is a weak argument that should never be used by any person. The reason is that it tries to negate a belief on the fact the words are not found in the scripture. However, the concepts most certainly are found in the scripture. In fact, in Acts 17 when Paul addresses the Athenans, the first half is dealing with the ontology of the created things. He does not use the word, but he does use the concept.

Furthermore, sola scriptura does not teach that everything has to be backed up, scripture and verse. What it does teach is that it cannot contradict scripture, or that scripture is the final authority and equal to nothing in terms of revelation or authority.

Again, I fail to see what you are talking about. Lets look at the words of Jesus concerning "earthly" things vs "spiritual" things.

John 3:12

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Obviously Jesus did not put earthly things on the same level with the spiritual. Lest anyone quote another verse in that chapter, saying I haven't read it or something, lets requote the entire conversation with Nicodemus. Ill stop at verse 16, because I hope you get the point by then.

Jesus speaks nothing to the ontology of earthly vs. spiritual. All He is saying is that if the Pharisees (specifically Nicodemus) have not believed in the things they have seen, then there is no way they would believe in the spiritual world which is unseen. This does not mean the spiritual world is higher, it merely means that there is a difference between the two. Not in metaphysical importance, but in how the two exist.

You have again failed to provide scriptural or otherwise logical basis for this conclussion. You simply state it as fact, and with no support or basis.

This is what I said:

However, you will stick with the body being inferior to the spirit. With this, Christ could not have inhereted a physical body because it would have made Him "lesser."

I am getting tired of having to repeat my logic on this.

If the body is lesser than the spirit, then Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate. Instead of Jesus being God incarnate, He would instead have to be a human being that inhereted the Spirit of God. The reasoning for this is that if the spirit is more important than the body, if it is on a higher spiritual plain of existence, then Christ could not contaminate himself. It would make Christ lesser than a spirit and therefore less than God. To put on a physical form would mean he was putting on an unecessary outfit.

In other words, if what you are saying is true, the logical conclusion is that Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate.

I honestl don't know how to make it any clearer. If the body is less than the spirit, than Christ could not come down and inheret His own image. The reason He was able to become human is that we are made in His image...if the physical body is somehow less than the spirit, this means it is no longer God's image. Unless you want to support the idea that there is somehow a dualistic nature to God's image in which part of God is lesser than Himself.

The shedding of Jesus' innocent blood was a legal work(Col. 2:10-15).

Right, but you're missing the point. If our spirits are trapped in our bodies, which are lesser than our spirits, then true salvation would be obtained by leaving the physical body and moving towards our spirit. Thus His blood would not be needed.

Again, you've given no real reason, logical or scriptural, as to why this conclussion must be so.

Let's look at what I said again:

Implication #1 - Christ could not have inhereted a physical body.

If the body is lesser than the spirit, then Jesus and Christ would have to be seperate. Instead of Jesus being God incarnate, He would instead have to be a human being that inhereted the Spirit of God.

That is what I said. How does this lack logic? You are building a paper tiger with this. "There is no logic." Great, then show me how there isn't.

Here is all that I said:

Instead of Jesus being God incarnate, He would instead have to be a human being that inhereted the Spirit of God. The reasoning for this is that if the spirit is more important than the body, if it is on a higher spiritual plain of existence, then Christ could not contaminate himself. It would make Christ lesser than a spirit and therefore less than God. To put on a physical form would mean he was putting on an unecessary outfit.

In other words, Christ could not exist in a two tiered existance if the two aspects were unequal. One would be His image, the other would not. God created man in His image...both in body and spirit. If one is higher than the other, then only one aspect is truly His image and the other is nothing more than an image of the image; in other words it becomes a simulacra. This means that the physical body of Christ would be a simulacrum of who He truly is, and therefore would only be a false image, or a lesser image, of Christ.

How does that make Christ less than God? I'm not following you. I also did not say the spirit was on an higher plane of existence either, you however INSIST that I must believe that, and continue to attack a strawman that I never made...

How could anything I said cause a physical body to be unnecessary? How could incarnation contaminate God one way or another? Do you believe in immaculate conception or something? Because I certainly do not. Mary was a guilty sinner. Jesus never once sinned in any way shape or form.

By stating that the body is lesser than the spirit you inherently place it on a lesser ontological level. There is just no getting around that.

God made both to be in His image...so they are either equal, or they are seperate to the point one is more than the other. This, once again, makes Christ less because He would have come as a simulacrum and therefore would have had a split dichotomy of reality. He would be lesser than Himself while inhabiting His creation. It is true that He became "less" by becomming human, but there would have been multiple levels of significance whilst human that would eventually contradict His own image.

I don't see how that's a logical conclussion. Jesus IS the Christ. How could he be seperate from the Christ? Why would I even remotely draw such a conclussion? There is no reason to. The scripture says in John 1:14 that the "Word became flesh and dwelt among us." I am saved by the blood of Jesus who IS The Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, who is God in the flesh. Who Is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.

We're going in circles here because you continue to accuse me of something I absolutely do not believe or support.

We are only going in circles because:

1) You apparently don't comprehend what "implication" means. I am saying the implication of your belief is that Jesus is seperate from Christ.

2) You refuse to actually look at what I am saying.

I agree that Jesus is Christ, that He is the Word become flesh. However, look to my previous two paragraphs that show if the body is lesser than the spirit then He could not have inhabited both. He would have contradicted His own image.

Why do you keep insisting that I believe the body was originally inherently flawed? I said no such thing. God said on the sixth day that his creation was "very good", so how could it be flawed? I showed how death already existed before the fall, and that the fall itself did not even prohibit the power of the Tree of Life, but God's righteousness did. Again, you keep making strawmen, attributing them to me, as though I said it or believe it, and then attacking them.

Again, implications. If the body is lesser than the spirit then God had no reason to put us in bodies. HE also has no reason to put us in bodies in the future. Likewise, will those bodies be able to die as well? Regardless, I have destroyed the belief that our bodies were mortal before the fall. That is, in fact, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Not according to Jesus you don't. Lets see what the Lord says about this...The Lord said that even your body is more than food and raiment.

Matthew 6:25

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Luke 12:23

The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

So the human body IS more than the other material things in the world, but that does not prove the body has the same value as the spirit or soul.

*sigh*

I said that. I said what makes us more significant than the rest of creation is that we are in God's image. Ontologically, however, we are not any different because we exist as part of creation. Paul draws this correlation in Romans 8. Really, it's not a hard concept.

Paul said that we are going to be raised with a spiritual body(), presumably like that of the angles, since the Lord said that we will be as the angels are(Matt. 22:30)

1 Corinthians 15:44

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

WHat is that I see comming over the horizon? It's the missapplication train!

The natural body is that which was given to us by Adam. It is one that is fallen, corruptable, and lacking what it was originally intended for. The spiritual body is the one given to us by the second Adam. Verse 45 even states this. Regardless, both are physical bodies...this does not mean that the body is somehow lesser than the spirit. ALl this supports is the idea that we will always be in some physical form....if bodies are lesser than the spirit....why is God always going to keep us in them?

ow is it a contradiction? What exactly does it contradict? God created the Body, obviously he did on the 6th day, remember? He formed adam with his own two hands. Man is created in the image and likeness of God.

If the body is lesser than the spirit, then there is no reason for us to be created in the bodies. Likewise, there is no purpose to permanently be contained in our bodies. It makes no sense at all.

So are you saying God needed to create man? That seems to be what you are saying anyway. Obviously there is something fallacious about this paragraph and its conclussions. God does not have needs. God is the beginning and the end. But by your logic, God must have needed man or else he would not have made man.

Yes, He did. He did not need man, but at some point He had to create something so that He could display His glory. If He created something that was impersonable, then it woudl not be able to acknowledge His glory. Therefore He had to create a personable being. God does not need man, but if He wants to display His glory, then He needs a conscience and personable being to display His glory to.

Equally, there was no need to make mankind "male and female", as it is obvious there are asexual methods of reproduction, and God himself is obviously not a female, and yet God chose to make mankind, and most higher life forms for that matter, as male and female, even though in general it is not as effective or efficient a means of reproduction as asexual reproduction. Case in point, Jellyfish reproduce both asexually and sexually, and they REALLY multiply during the asexual cycles of their life. Sorry, but your argument fails the test of reality. You said earlier that if a philosophy could not be applied to reality then it must not be right, well, look at your own statements.

LOL...you have a good sense of humour....oh wait, you're serious? Wow....

God could not make personable beings asexual because this would negate them being personable. It would no longer require any interaction with eachother. The purpose of sexuality is:

1) Pleasure

2) Union

3) Pro-creation

If we were asexual then we lose the first two parts and essentially become less than human. You dont't even want to try to debate me on this point mate.

Read the book of ecclesiastes. Solomon struggle with just that concept, and concluded that the only purpose for life is to "fear God and keep his commandments" He concluded that wisdom is good, but that too much wisdom is pointless. Books are good, but making many books is pointless. Wealth is good, he said, but what good is so much wealth? He asked, since I can only eat so much, can only ride so many horses, can only have so many wives, etc, etc. In short, the paragraph you posted is not far from the truth, though you miss the point. I really do recommend you read the book of Ecclesiastes carefully.

I actually wrote an entire thesis on it. You are missing the point. Solomon wrote the book when he was far from God. It was written later in his life when he had fallen from grace with God. If too much wisdom was worthless, then Christ was worthless...therefore we can conclude that Solomon is showing us that all these things, without God, become useless. He is not saying they are inhernetly useless but instead that when we do all of it absent from God it loses its point.

Anyway, let us get to scripture.

In Philippians 1:21 we see that Paul states to be absent from the body is to be Christ. This must mean that the body is lesser than the spirit, right? Here is what he says in the following verses:

22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.

23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;

24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

Paul shows that both are equal. Whilst it is true that being with Christ is much better, both are ontologically equal because both require us to do the work of Christ. In other words, if the spirit was more important than the body, Paul would have no problem choosing which to follow.

The most condemning passage for you though is Matthew 22:37:

And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

Notice what it says. We shall love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. This means every aspect of our being is worthy of loving God. If the body is metaphysically less than the spirit, it would only need to be a tool of love, not a totality of love. I don't love God with all of my hammer...which is a tool....but I do love Him with all of my body (mind).

In conclusion, you are trying to debate something that you are not ready for. I am not trying to be rude, just honest. This is a subject you know nothing about. You don't even know what ontology is (you admitted so). Go study the issue and then come back and debate...you're only going to frustrate yourself, and me, in the end if you keep this debate up with such a lack of knowldege on it. Just as I would not debate Calvinism because I lack significant knowledge on it, you should not debate this because you do lack it.

[apothanein kerdos]

I can't even tell which replies belong to you and which ones belong to me.

[RustyAngeL]

I don't see anything wrong with songs that tell stories as long as they don't go against the will of God.

One of my favorite singers is Gordon Lightfoot. He tells amazing stories in song and they are just stories. No glorification of evil or anything like that. It would be no more evil than reading Anne of Green Gables

Yeah I have to agree with you on this one. Thee is music that I like that is not Christian too. I love country western music. And I too like Gorden Lightfoot. So long st there is no evil, I have no problem with things like the above mentioned.