Oh, I am - as usual -being silly.
You actually know about as much as I do; some medieval question
about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" I take it
the original question was about whether or not angels have
mass/substance and was considered a debate of importance at the
time (and I'm guessing 15th century ish). It was apparently some
famous argument, but I could never follow back in that annoying
philosophy class where we went over it, as I've never being able to
follow any religous/philosophical argument one whit.
These attempts to "logically" prove philosophical/theological points
always seemed to make as much sense to me as Monty Python's "if
she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore a
witch".
With such weak logical skills, how will I ever understand whether
kirksey would or would not be damned depending on whether The
Baron AKA "God" is fallible or infallible? Was The Baron's timeout loss
proof of his nondivinity? Or is it a test of our faith in His Divine Nature?
Grin grin.