Is the physical higher than the spiritual?

Bruce Charlton argues once again that the solid is better than the spiritual, this time on his own blog under the title “Why is incarnation (being embodied) a higher state than life as a pure spirit?“.


He starts out saying that the idea behind “one of the most profound, yet simple, insights of Mormon theology” is that “God is incarnate”, and that “this mortal life is primarily about ‘getting a body’ – the work of Jesus Christ was (in part) to enable all men to be resurrected, and live eternally incarnate (and cleansed of corruption). This, Bruce says, “was a breakthrough in theology”.

It may be a breakthrough, but it’s entirely consistent with traditional Christian doctrine. Any Catholic can say without fear of violating orthodoxy that God became incarnate, that this mortal life is about us getting bodies, and that Jesus’ work was to enable all men to live eternally in resurrected bodies freed from corruption.

Admittedly when Bruce says “God is incarnate”, what he probably means is that God the Father has a physical body, and not that Jesus – God the Son – became incarnate (though he believes that too). But my point is, Bruce’s statement of Christ’s work and the purpose of our life on earth seems to have no relation to whether or not the Father has a body.


Why, then, is it a problem to believe that God is not embodied? And why is it a “breakthrough” to believe that he is? By “breakthrough” I assume Bruce means that it solves some previously intractable problem. But what problem does it solve?

According to Bruce the problem is that “the religious tradition has tended strongly towards seeing pure spiritual life as a higher form of life than embodiment.” Christians have “often lapsed into talking about the body as corruption and the spirit as higher and purer and more divine. Consequently, mortal incarnate life was often perceived as intrinsically second rate or actually pointless, compared with spiritual life in Heaven.”

That last sentence is correct, and in fact I will say it right now: Mortal incarnate life as lived by fallen humanity is “second rate” compared with spiritual life in heaven. But not because it’s worse to live in a body. Does Bruce think that traditional Christians believe it’s best to be freed from our bodies, in order to become pure spirits in heaven — and never to be resurrected? Does he think that on the day of resurrection Christians will recoil in horror, begging to be spared the “second rate” life of living in a body once again?

Obviously this has never been the teaching of the traditional Christian Church. It has always been taught dogmatically that Christians who die in the state of grace will be resurrected and will live forever with Christ, in heaven, in their resurrected bodies, and that this is paradise.

Bruce argues that because there has arisen repeatedly thoughout history the heresy that spirit is good and matter is evil, therefore the Mormon doctrine that God the Father is embodied solves this problem once and for all. But there’s another way of solving this problem once and for all:  which is the traditional teaching that matter, like everything else God made, is good, and that the problem with living on earth in a human body is not the body per se but the consequences on the human body resulting from the Fall; and that it’s therefore necessary to discipline the body by fasting and penance in order not to be ruled by the body but to rule it, and thereby to avoid sin and attain to the resurrection of our bodies, after which we will be free from the consequences of the Fall and able to enjoy our bodies to the full without fear of their leading us into sin.


I suppose Bruce’s argument boils down to this: When Christians believe that God is pure spirit, this causes them to consider spirit the highest and best thing, and to denigrate the body. Whereas if they believe God is embodied, then they will respect and revere matter and their own bodies.

But didn’t Christians already believe that God was embodied, before Mormonism came along? Did we not believe that Christ was embodied, and that he was God?

On the other hand, don’t we and the Mormons also believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Yet according to Mormon teaching the Holy Spirit “is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones.” There is no more contradiction between the Father being unembodied and matter being good, than there is between the Holy Spirit being unembodied and matter being good; is there?

The heresy that matter is evil arises not because of the Father being unembodied, but because of man’s fallen nature. The heretic sees that his body leads him into sin through the various lusts of the flesh. He finds it virtually impossible to prevent this. He reads in the scriptures that “[T]he one who sows to his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (Jn. 6:63); “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (Gal. 6:8); “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” (Mt. 26:41). He concludes that the spirit is good and the body is evil. If this heresy could be defeated by abandoning the belief in God’s spiritual nature, perhaps it could be defeated even more effectively by excising these verses from the scriptures. But we don’t abandon truth to defeat heresy.

Heresy is always a perversion of truth, a skewing or exaggeration of one truth at the expense of others. People can pervert any doctrine they want. The doctrine of God’s being embodied is itself susceptible of being skewed or exaggerated at the expense of other truths (and I would argue that it has; but that’s another topic), thus giving rise to heresy.

But the heresy of bodies being evil is not a skewing of the belief in God’s spiritual nature. This part they get exactly right: That God is pure spirit and free of bodily concupiscence. The part they skew is the doctrine of the Fall. Rather than thinking of their bodies as good things under a curse as a result of sin, but capable of redemption, they think of them as bad things through and through. They think this way despite the Church’s insistence that the body is good, and despite the proof of the body’s eventual glorification and redemption that is provided by Christ’s Resurrection.


Bruce asks, “So, why is incarnation a higher state than pure spirit? Why is it a spiritual progression to ‘get a body’?”

He answers by explaining that we’re not “ghosts in machines”, but rather, composites of body and soul. We don’t inhabit our bodies like a man wearing a suit; “rather, the two become one”. But again this is no improvement on traditional orthodoxy, since it is traditional orthodoxy.

Next he explains that by becoming incarnate, “the immaterial spirit comes to inhabit the material world. The soul thereby attains the fullest possible integration with the whole of reality.”

This argument makes sense on the assumption of the Mormon belief that we have all existed from eternity as disembodied “intelligences”. Since it’s the nature of human beings to have a body, naturally we are happier in bodies. Probably it would feel like a great advantage, after an eternity of being disembodied, finally to have a chance to be embodied, not only on this earth but forevermore.

But according to traditional Christian belief, body and soul are created at one and the same time, as a complete whole. There is no time when we exist as disembodied spirits, excepting the interval between death and resurrection. For orthodox Christians there is no eternal, disembodied preexistence from which obtaining a body constitutes a great relief and the solution to a long-endured privation.


Bruce writes that “Incarnation is more a matter of concentration than of constraint”.

Again this seems to address the problem of preexisting, disembodied spirits, or intelligences. Joseph Smith writes in the scriptural book of the Doctrine & Covenants, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” D&C 131:7-8. With this in mind the idea of “concentration” makes sense. Smith seems to have in mind spirits who are not entirely immaterial, but who are made up of a finer matter than that with which we are familiar. In this context it might make sense to speak of the concentration of this “fine”, “pure” matter into something more solid, as being an advantage, enabling us to interact with the denser matter of our world.

But if we’re speaking not of fine matter but of pure spirit, what is there to concentrate into matter? Pure spirit is not dissipated matter in need of concentration; it’s no matter at all.


Bruce writes that “enhanced creative power is a product of that greater concentration and of fuller self-awareness, which is characteristic of the incarnate soul”.

Here Bruce makes bald assertions: that the “concentration” involved in becoming embodied gives one fuller self-awareness, resulting in “enhanced creative power”. But what basis is there for saying that a pure spirit is less self-aware than an embodied man? It seems to me the opposite: An embodied man lives within time, and therefore experiences reality one moment at a time. He also lives in space and experiences reality one “space” at a time, the space in which his physical body happens to be located. His eyes see the physical things that are in his field of vision. Can an embodied man see every part of his body at once? Can he see inside his body with his physical eyes? How conscious is he of the workings of his inner organs?

If a physical body is higher than a spiritual mind, this implies that his thoughts have a physical rather than a spiritual basis. Are his thoughts, then, physically contained within his brain? Aside from the philosophical difficulties this presents, how many of his thoughts can he think at one time? Has he perfect awareness of his subconscious at every moment? Has he full and complete understanding of his feelings and emotions?

It seems that a being of pure spirit, not limited in space or time, would have a more complete awareness of his entire self, than a being made up of trillions of cells and dependent on those cells for his self-awareness. All of those cells are him, according to Bruce, since he is, and doesn’t merely inhabit, his body. So full self-awareness must include awareness of every one of those cells. But the cells themselves in a physical being are what provide that self-awareness. Can they be both the means and the object of awareness, simultaneously? Can a sensor sense itself?

Thus there are inherent limits to the self-awareness of a physical being, which don’t apply to a pure spirit.

If on the other hand it is argued that a physical being can be entirely self-aware by means other than his physical organs and the cells which make up his body, what means can those be but spiritual ones? Yet if a physical being attains complete self-awareness through spiritual means, then in what way is the physical said to be higher?


Bruce argues that by not being incarnated, the pure spirit is excluded from the material realm, and therefore is not in touch with the whole of reality.

This argument rests on the assumption that “the whole of reality” was not created by a pure spirit in the first place; thus in arguing for a Mormon metaphysics, it assumes a Mormon metaphysics.

There is nothing logically contradictory about a pure spirit creating material reality and holding it in existence, as orthodox Christians have held for millennia. And if this is what God does, then clearly he’s not out of touch with material reality.

Bruce himself writes that “What happens with incarnation is that the immaterial spirit comes to inhabit the material world.” But if immaterial spirits can have no contact with the material world, then how can they “come to inhabit” it? Isn’t incarnation (under this description) the fusion, so to speak, of the immaterial with the material, such that the former now interacts with and controls the latter? But if spirit can interact with matter in these circumstances, why can’t it do so under other circumstances?

There is a commonly held notion that the immaterial can’t have awareness of and interaction with the material, on the ground that matter can only be affected by other matter, or at least physical forces. Thus as Bruce asserts, pure spirit is excluded from the material realm. But this is based on scientific findings, science being the observation and testing of physical phenomena using physical organs and instruments. Science obviously can say nothing about spirit, therefore the exclusion of spirit from scientific explanations of material phenomena proves nothing. If spirit were involved in the process of holding material reality in existence, science could know nothing about it. Science also can know nothing as to whether a being of pure spirit can observe material reality or interact with it.

We’re tempted to conclude that because “material” and “immaterial” are opposites, never the twain may meet. But the very concept of immaterial beings “coming to inhabit the material world” belies this conclusion. It’s hard to understand how one can hold both views without contradicting oneself. Can they interact or can’t they?


Bruce says that when a spiritual being is incarnated, he now has the physical realm open to him, from which he previously was excluded. But what if he is incarnated as an amoeba? How much of the physical realm does that give him contact with?

On the other hand, what if he is incarnated as a being the size of the entire universe? Wouldn’t that render life on earth microscopic to him, or indeed, subatomic? How much physical interaction could he then have with the physical realm as we think of it? Since a body must always be of a specific size and scale, isn’t a physical being always excluded from interacting with the great swaths of physical reality that are beyond his scale?

A spirit, not being limited by size, can in theory observe, interact with and grasp everything in the universe, from atoms to the universe as a whole; whereas a physical being, to the extent that he is physical, can only interact with things on more or less the same scale as himself. This isn’t to say that his spirit might not be able to interact with physical things outside of the scale which he inhabits. This is what human beings do when pondering and making discoveries about subatomic particles and aspects of the universe which are beyond our direct observation: When we ponder and theorize about them, we are interacting with them not physically, but mentally; which is another way of saying spiritually. Doesn’t this make the spiritual less limited than the physical? and therefore higher?


For these reasons it appears to me that the Father’s having a physical body solves problems that are themselves created by Bruce’s assumed Mormon-based metaphysics. If only the physical can create, and it can only create the physical, and then only by rearranging matter, then all creation must be physical, in which case the non-physical is nothing; and even if we grant that it’s not nothing, it is still cut off from the physical simply by virtue of being non-physical.

Whereas if we assume that God is a spirit who created the material and maintains it constantly in existence, then the spiritual and the material are both good and can interact with each other. But the spiritual is higher since it rules over the physical. In the case of human beings, through the effects of the Fall, the physical rebels, and it’s a struggle for the spiritual to maintain the proper mastery. But we’ve been provided a remedy for this ailment through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. By faith in him we believe, not that we will be freed from our bodies, but that they will be resurrected and once again properly subject to the spirit and therefore freed from the effects of concupiscence (of which Christians can have occasional foretastes even in this life).

I agree that being embodied is a higher state than being unembodied or disembodied for a human being, since it’s our nature to be embodied; but that it’s a higher state absolutely, I don’t think Bruce has shown.

10 thoughts on “Is the physical higher than the spiritual?

  1. @Agellius I noticed this a couple of days ago, and have thought about how I might reply – but on the whole the differences in our primary assumptions are so great that I can’t see any possibility of genuine discussion.

    When you say: ” the Father’s having a physical body solves problems that are themselves created by Bruce’s assumed Mormon-based metaphysics.” this is only really true in the sense that Mormon metaphysics is indeed self-consistent, and there would indeed be a problem if God was NOT embodied.

    Also I don’t suppose anyone would adopt Mormon metaphysics *because* it included an embodied god.

    The question – then – is what is the reason for embracing Mormon Christian metaphysics rather than Classical Christian metaphysics?

    What draws people such as myself to Mormon metaphysics is quite different. In the first place it is the explanation of agency/ free will – hence the workings of evil; and also its role for each individual Man, in a creative sense – the clear implication that eternity is a matter of evolution towards ever-fuller (never complete) divinity including becoming a creator of the same type a God (albeit within God’s creation).

    Also, the way that Mormon metaphysics fits comfortably with the Gospels, and the very personal kind of religion Jesus expounds and embodies – Mormonism is a thought system which (in its main tendency) tries to make almost everything a personal matter, a matter of concrete persons, with a ruling master metaphor of family relationships.

    The metaphysical aspects that most interest and inspire me about Mormonism are not, I think, very evident in the thinking of ‘rank and file’ active Mormons in the CJCLDS; and they have not, indeed, been much explored (so far as I know) in Mormon thought so far. But I think they are implied as a consequence of the metaphysical assumptions – which are radical in the extreme.

    (The best way I can explain this is via WIlliam James and his ‘pluralism’ – James asserted, and I agree, that the division between metaphysical monism and pluralism, as he defined them, is the primary divison in all of philosophy – and (as James apparently recognised late in life) Mormonism is the only metaphysically-pluralist form of Christianity.)

    That is the nature of my own deep interest in these matters.


  2. Bruce:

    I appreciate you replying at all. : )

    I won’t argue with your comments, but will just say that I’m puzzled by the emphasis placed on agency by Mormons. Not that I don’t think it’s important, but that I don’t think it’s unique to Mormonism among Christians. With the exception of some Calvinists, I’m not aware of any Christians who don’t believe we have free will and that our will and our actions determine our ultimate fate. Yet Mormons seem to speak as though the notion of agency was something no one ever thought of before. Am I missing something?


  3. @Agellius

    wrt Agency, I can’t speak for Mormons as such – but the Mormon metaphysics provides a simple and coherent explanation of why Men have agency – whereas although mainstream Christians certainly believe in the reality of agency, the explanation they offer is incoherent – a ‘hand waving’ non-explanation.

    Now, this is not a fatal objection – because not everything important or true can be coherently explained – but I personally found it a stumbling block.

    BTW my point is, and has always been, that Christianuty is orthogonal to metaphysics – in other words that a real Christian can have a variety of metaphysical explanations and still be a real Christian.

    Indeed, I think it is probably a good thing to have a variety of metaphysical explanations ‘on offer’ – historically there has been far too much emphasis on Christians having the ‘single correct’ metaphysics/ philosophy – in other words ‘heresy’ has been more assiduously sought-out and severely sanctioned than apostasy, and still is (most Christian churches are more tolerant of their own ‘liberals’ – ie. lapsed Christians who remain in the church, often n senior leadership positions – than they are tolerant of serious Christians in other denominations) – and this has been A Bad Thing.

    (PS – According to comments and e-mails, there have been several readers of my blog who say that it has been significant in their conversion to Christianity, and who became Roman Catholics – and I am happy about that, and it fits with my idea that metaphysics is suboridnate to real Christianity!)


  4. Thanks, I find the exchange interesting!

    I think you made a good defense of our Catholic beliefs, but Dr. Charlton is right in observing that the systems are so distinct that an argument on this specific topic isn’t quite feasible.

    God the Father being incarnate is crucial to Mormon metaphysics as it underlines the most basic understanding of theosis and purpose in life, so Dr. Charlton’s explanation is simply secondary and perhaps personally useful to him in explaining this.

    I may be misunderstanding, but you were, I think, arguing that being incarnate indicates a limitation – I think Augustine was arguing differently here?

    As Augustine replies (Ep. ad Volusian. 137): “The Christian doctrine nowhere holds that God was so joined to human flesh as either to desert or lose, or to transfer and as it were, contract within this frail body, the care of governing the universe. This is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal things . . . God is great not in mass, but in might. Hence the greatness of His might feels no straits in narrow surroundings. Nor, if the passing word of a man is heard at once by many, and wholly by each, is it incredible that the abiding Word of God should be everywhere at once?” Hence nothing unfitting arises from God becoming incarnate.

    So in defense of the Mormon metaphysic on this point, if pre-existence was assumed, and this pre-existence somehow entailed a soul that was a germ or child of God, then perhaps becoming incarnate too would not in anyway be a constraint or limitation on the abilities of the spirit?


  5. Andrew:

    I agree that a preexisting spirit becoming incarnate need not constrain the spiritual powers of that being. But that’s not the question. The question is which is higher, the physical or the spiritual?

    Your phrasing shows that you assume the spiritual is higher — since you ask whether the physical constrains the spiritual, but you don’t ask whether the spiritual constrains the physical. The very notion of the spirit being a drag on the body seems absurd. It can only be the body that is (potentially) a drag on the spirit.

    The quote from Augustine makes the same point: Augustine affirms that God the Son taking on a physical nature doesn’t lessen his divine, spiritual attributes — but he doesn’t even consider whether his spiritual attributes lessen his physical nature. It’s assumed, rightly, that they don’t.

    Thus, the spiritual is higher than the physical.

    I don’t agree that “the systems are so distinct that an argument on this specific topic isn’t quite feasible.” So long as we start with basic principles that we agree on, we can discuss anything. It may not be easy but it can be done. Whether we consider it worth the time and effort is another matter. I’m game to do it but I certainly understand that Bruce has plenty of other interests that occupy his time.


  6. @Agellius – At a deep metaphysical level, the idea is that the universe began as diffuse spirit – and creation is always a condensation and concentration (or a creation of stuff from non-stuff, if you assume that ‘immaterial’ means nothing at all).

    And in the case of Jesus Christ, incarnation was not a diminution but an enhancement of his pre-incarnated and spiritual self.

    And resurrection is the gift to Men of eternity as incarnated (if incarnation was lower than spirit life, then why bother incarnating?)

    So – assuming this persepctive, it is natural to assume that God the Father – who is highest – is incarnate, i.e. has a body.

    My point is not to persuade you! – but simply to show that this idea of God the Father as embodied is part of a bigger, and strikingly coherent, picture of creation and the human condition.


  7. I did want to say, as a regular Dr. Charlton reader a “fan” but also a Catholic, I do appreciate you sharing the Catholic understanding. It is beyond my wisdom to fully understand and agree or disagree with his writings and the timely perspective is helpful!


  8. Bruce:

    You write, “And resurrection is the gift to Men of eternity as incarnated (if incarnation was lower than spirit life, then why bother incarnating?) So – assuming this persepctive, it is natural to assume that God the Father – who is highest – is incarnate, i.e. has a body.”

    Embodiment is a desirable state for men because it’s our nature to have bodies. In the state between physical death and resurrection, being disembodied, we are in a less desirable state FOR A HUMAN BEING because we are incomplete according to the standard of our nature. It doesn’t follow that being embodied is a higher state than pure spirit *absolutely*.

    “My point is not to persuade you! – but simply to show that this idea of God the Father as embodied is part of a bigger, and strikingly coherent, picture of creation and the human condition.”

    I accept that you’re not trying to persuade me. But your original post argued for your position as against the traditional orthodox position, as a solution to a problem, so I’m approaching this as a defense of orthodoxy. Further, you propose an alternative to the metaphysic traditionally espoused by orthodox Christians, and I think it’s fair to examine it and see how well it holds up to scrutiny.

    1. infinite chasm

    You seem to be speaking of more or less a spectrum or timeline, from “diffuse spirit” to “condensed matter”, as if moving from less condensed matter to more condensed matter. This is fine, matter can be condensed or it can be diffused; it can expand or contract, I suppose, so the spectrum may as well move in the direction of condensing as diffusing (though isn’t the universe generally believed by scientists to be expanding – or “diffusing” – rather than contracting?).

    The problem is that spirit does not belong on a spectrum starting from diffuse matter and ending at condensed matter — since spirit is no matter at all. Before matter can enter the spectrum, and begin the gradual stages of condensing from a lesser density to a greater density, it first has to make the decidedly non-gradual step — indeed it must cross an infinite gulf — from non-being to being. That is, if spirit is the starting point, which you said it was, what causes matter to begin to be, where before there was only spirit? From nothing, nothing comes. The only thing that can bring something into being out of nothing, is an infinite being; and since the being is spirit, we’re talking about an infinite spirit; and this, as they say, everyone calls God.

    2. arbitrary starting and ending – planned

    Supposing you are not using “spirit” in the traditional sense as “immaterial being”, but rather in J. Smith’s sense of a being of “purer” and “finer” matter than that of which our bodies and our world are composed; such that the starting point of the spectrum is not “no matter” but “pure, fine matter” which is relatively diffuse compared to what we’re used to; this eliminates the infinite gulf that matter must cross, from non-being to being.

    But if “in the beginning”, that is, at the start of the universe, which is also the start of the spectrum from diffuse to condensed matter, there was not pure spirit but only diffuse matter, matter must start out at some particular degree of diffuseness. What degree was it? Suppose we define the initial degree of diffuseness as one atom per X square inches. Why wasn’t it one atom per 2X square inches, or one atom per 1000X square inches, or for that matter one atom per 1X/2 square inches? Why X square inches in particular?

    And on the other end of the spectrum, the density of matter towards which we are progressing, must also be a specific density of matter. If more condensed matter is better or higher, then what’s the end point? Will we “progress” to becoming solid blocks of iron or lead? Or if we stop progressing at some point, what causes us to stop at that particular point?

    It would appear that if we are starting at a particular ideal point of diffuseness, and ending at a particular ideal point of density — rather than starting out with infinite diffuseness, i.e. no matter at all, and ending at infinite density, which I suppose would kill us — then the whole thing is a directed process, and must have been planned out in advance, with starting and ending points of density deliberately chosen. But if it’s planned out in advance, it must be planned by some being outside the spectrum. And if outside the spectrum, then a being not of matter, since the spectrum is the spectrum of matter itself. Thus, a being of spirit. And this we call God.

    3. further along but not higher

    You might say that matter “just is” in the universe, as God is thought to “just be” by traditional Christians. Of course from the start, a traditional Christian metaphysician would object that matter can’t “just be” in the same sense that a traditional Christian believes God “just is”, since matter is contingent and is not the first mover but is itself moved, etc.

    Be set that aside for now. Let us think of matter/energy as one substance which has simply always existed; no one knows why or where it came from, and God as well as all other intelligences have existed from eternity in the form of spirit-beings of matter/energy of a particular density of X. That is, until such time as the spirit-being we call God decided to begin condensing into more solid matter, and then prepared a path by which the other diffuse spirit-beings might become condensed as well; and suppose this plan we now know as the Mormon “plan of salvation”.

    Now God presumably by this point has reached the point of maximal or optimum density or concentratedness, and won’t continue condensing until he’s a solid block of iron or what have you. You might say that at this point in God’s evolution, being denser than he was at the beginning, he is now a higher being than he was at the beginning. By which is meant, that he is further along in the process than when he began. Diffuseness being assumed to mean “worse” and concentratedness to mean “better”, by that standard he is now a higher being than he was before.

    But recall that God mapped out this process in the beginning, before he began condensing. Seeing as how, while still in this state, he was able to conceive this plan, map it out, and put it into execution, it would seem that he was just as wise and powerful in the beginning as he is now. Thus, it’s hard to see in what sense he is now in a “higher” state than he was at the start, except according to the arbitrary standard of having progressed to a farther point in the plan which he conceived for himself. In other words, what specifically makes higher density a higher state of *being*, other than the fact that God decided to become condensed, since it evidently doesn’t make one more powerful or wise?

    If it is contended that God didn’t conceive and map out this plan and begin to carry it into effect while still in a materially diffuse state; but rather reality itself is simply set up that way; that reality itself just is infinitely wise and powerful, and it’s this infinitely wise, powerful reality itself which resulted in God going down the path to greater and greater concentration and thus to higher and higher states of being — why then “reality itself” would seem to be the thing which the traditional Christian calls God.


  9. Pingback: Is the physical higher than the spiritual? (yet again) | Petty Armchair Popery

  10. Pingback: The spiritual is higher than the physical, part 4 | Petty Armchair Popery

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s