The Red World distinguishes "life" from non-life by an inspection of the metaphysical make-up of the being in question. Truly "live" creatures have all three elements of the self, namely the Flesh, the Spirit, and the Shadow. These beings are called "composite beings" because they possess all three essences.
First I will describe the nature of each of these self-elements. In a separate post, I will describe how these parts exist in the several different living beings.

Flesh: In this case, it has no connection to the Christian spiritual idea of the flesh. For the Red World, it represents only the physical body. Thus, all truly living beings have some sense of a physical body. Very simple.

Spirit: Again, no connection The Spirit of Christian theology. This is the invisible soul. Importantly, the spirit is not intrinsically evil, though it has no bent for good either. The spirit represents the nature of the man when at his inception, when he was first designed, before even conception. At conception, the spirit is infused with that flesh, and also receives a shadow, to make it a fully living being.

Shadow: The shadow has only analogous connections to the dark spot cast on the ground by a man standing up. The shadow is where the bent for evil comes into man, giving him also a "scent" of evil discernible by some beings. The shadow limits all the capabilities of natural man, restraining the spirit from great works of craft and what-not.

So... Animals are considered "non-living"?

Fascinating. But this sounds dangerously close to Pelagianism. Also, why would something not be considered truly "live" if it didn't have "shadow"?

This isn't the typical idea of "life." It is more like "intelligent, morally volitional life." The idea is to separate men, dragons, and demons from animals, plants, and spirits. It isn't so much of a classification, but a name for those three (men, dragons, and demons). They are the three races which hold the destiny of the worlds for the most part.

Spirit-beings, the angels, devils, etc. of the world do not fall under this sort of designation, because they are not usually morally volitional. The kings, the highest of the spiritual order, have choice, but otherwise spirits have determined their allegiance (with maybe few exceptions).

For these purposes, which are more metaphysical than biological, yes.

It is more that the shadow defines it as live, arbitrarily. It has to do with moral will, this, having a bad side is necessary to be making moral choices, otherwise one would be all good.

That's about what I gathered from your earlier post. But ...

Sigh. I strongly recommend you read up on the dispute between Pelagius and Augustine before taking this any further; this sounds far too close to Pelagianism for comfort, except that your world comes to his conclusions from entirely different premises. And while designing a world in which the Pelagian heresy happened to be right would be an interesting project (much like a world in which reincarnation is the normal way of things, or the world came about by chance, or truth depended on belief rather than the other way around), I feel that unless it was done incredibly well this would be a dangerous undertaking at best.

I wouldn't say that this system is Pelagian. Pelagianism denies original sin, saying that mankind since Adam is not intrinsically sinful. I just assign the intrinsic sinful nature to one specific part of the individual which is not their physical body. I have designed this so as to magnify the importance of individual choice, which is in tandem with the Pelagian heresy, but, as you said, does not assume the same foundation. I do deliberately increase the importance of moral choices, but I don't think theology is jeopardized.

Treading dangerously close, not entirely abandoned over the line yet, is my estimation.

Yes, that's true, but it's not that simple. (I'm not all that well-versed in Church history, just a dabbler who took a survey course in it for my first Religion elective in college, but we spent a week of that course on the period of the Pelagian controversy.) The distinguishing feature of Pelagianism I'm worried about here is that it puts evil, temptation, and such things as forces entirely external to the "real person", who can choose to sin, choose to not sin, choose to reject Jesus, or choose to believe in Jesus.

... and not the "essential person" either, based on your description of "spirit".

I assume that by "moral choices" you don't mean the opposite of "immoral hoices", but rather choices involving morality, in which one can choose to do good or evil. The thing is, the Bible makes it clear that we, "dead in our trespasses and sins", cannot of ourselves make a moral choice---or, rather, when we come to a moral choice, we cannot choose the moral path. Our inherited sin nature has tainted every part of us, including our bodies (with the rest of creation), our spirits ("dead"), our reason, and our moral capacity. I think Augustine said that Adam could sin, in Adam we cannot not sin, in Christ we can not sin, and that in the end we'll be in a state where we cannot sin. In our salvation, we bring nothing of any value to the table. God brings us, God provides the faith through which we are saved, and God does the saving. All is grace. Only after we have been saved---and have begun to be regenerated into true life---can we choose to obey God and do what is right (and even then it's not really us, but Christ in us, that chooses to obey). Pelagians refuse to acept this, and claim that as God freely chooses to offer salvation, so man can freely choose to accept it.

With this system you've developed, either you've made a sin nature be by definition an essential part of a spiritually-alive being---which seems ... backwards---or you've made the "flesh" (in Paul's term, not yours) be something that a being has, merely a sort of personal tempter, rather than a harmful twist that runs through his entire being.

I hope this clarifies my concern somewhat?

..... I did not understand a word either of you said.

In answer to your question, Seabird, animals would not be considered alive under this terminology. This term "alive" means alive in the full sense like a human being. Biologically, scientifically, animals are alive. But by this definition, animals don't fit in.

Basically, this "alive," means that they can make will-power decisions.

Um... Okay... That clarifies it, I guess.

After contemplating what kingpin said I agree that the sinful part cannot be necessary for the being, but more of a burden that can only be lifted by faith in Yesuah (Jesus).

Sorry, it just takes time to put two and two together after reading your opinions. I'm only in high school.

I see your point, KingJon. I think a large part of the fault lies in bad phrasing on my part. The shadow of my metaphysics is just an essential, just as real, just as natural a part of the whole person as any other part. I wouldn't consider it a foreign intrusion. It is just as essential to the person as the spirit is.
What I meant, but poorly communicated, was more the idea that the spirit is essence-ial. It conveys many of the intangible under-workings of the human soul, and is indeed that part which survives most clearly after death.

So in address to your main concern, I do not mean to separate the human evil nature from the person, but merely dissect it to a distinct part of that nature. Thus, my world is very different from ours in that I have arranged to be able to distinctly separate these three different parts. (If it helps, you can look at it as functioning something like the Trinity, with all three being distinct yet coming to a single, unified, whole).

Does that make it make more sense? Would you still recommend revision?

*finds this new explanation fascinating... *