How Many Angels Can Dance on The Head of a .... PIN?

[Gatekeeper]

Yes yes, I really truly really really really meant pin too. Ya gotta wonder if there's a point to this one. I've heard the question asked a few times over, and there seems to be an answer that has been accepted. I'm pretty sure it has a thing to do with beings who are more incorporeal and spiritual than anything else.

Like if the possibility exists that there's other worlds like our own, and if the universe is infinite and expanding, then the fact that this one exists in and of itself would imply, at least to me, that there are an infinite number of worlds like our own spread out across the universe.

 

[Thomas]

Oooh, steady ...

The origin of that question seems most likely to have come from those who sought to discredit theological and philosophical speculation.

In the Summa Thomas Aquinas asks: "Can several angels be in the same place?" (ST I q52 a3), but really such questions were rarely, if ever, debated or disputed.

It's generally believed to be a 17th century fabrication of Protestants against Catholic mystical and theological speculation — it marks the emergence of a narrow-minded empirical rationalism.

But, in answer to the question, according to St Thomas ('the Angelic Doctor' because he wrote so much about angels) the answer is: one.
(Summa Theologiae argument)

 

[Gatekeeper]

Oooh, steady ...

The origin of that question seems most likely to have come from those who sought to discredit theological and philosophical speculation.

In the Summa Thomas Aquinas asks: "Can several angels be in the same place?" (ST I q52 a3), but really such questions were rarely, if ever, debated or disputed.

It's generally believed to be a 17th century fabrication of Protestants against Catholic mystical and theological speculation — it marks the emergence of a narrow-minded empirical rationalism.

But, in answer to the question, according to St Thomas ('the Angelic Doctor' because he wrote so much about angels) the answer is: one.
(Summa Theologiae argument)

If that's true, then angels are more than spirit, yet all around. If only one, then they have substance and are quite limited. If spirit, then they could indwell inside us and I honestly think do. Some inside others outside, and yet it's all the same I would assume. One may be the best and most accurate answer. It's all one, the only way is one. The feeling I get when I'm feeling it, or at least knowing it like I've been knowing …. It? I prefer the term her, I could say they, but they are one and we are one together. I guess and almost like everything else we, attach gender specifics, even as we do with language or the Word .

She said then I was with him and I was daily his delight … That's wisdom and I would say that's who they are, the feminine among them, who from fear leads us to comfort joy and peace, a lot like Jesus was said to do. So yeah, I like your answer or rather St. Thomas' answer: One.

 

[RabbiO]

It depends on the kind of shoe being worn - hiking boots take up more space - and the dance - the Electric Slide, for example, requires more dancing room and thus fewer angels

 

[Gatekeeper]

Laviah!

I would agree and it seems to be a trend these days. Too many to move comfortably on the dance floor … so to speak. I'm not sure how to remedy the too many either. Dances like these are typically "best when it's one on one" …

 

[Gatekeeper]

One X here, but there's a two X somewhere around I just know it! I'd rather dance than play golf, and when x marks the spot does it ever. There should be an X XX song Y because it might be fun.

 

[Thomas]

If that's true, then angels are more than spirit, yet all around.

Yes, angels are spirit, but then there are choirs of angels, so yes, they are all spirit, but theyare not all the same. In fact Aquinas argues, quite logically, that each and every angel is its own unique species.

If only one, then they have substance and are quite limited.

No, you have to follow the logic of the argument in the Summa.

Angels do not 'occupy' any space as we do; they are not corporeal bodies.

If spirit, then they could indwell inside us and I honestly think do.

Oh, yes! Although 'inside' and 'outside' are again spatial determinations and thus open to error of interpretation. Literalists make great play of 'look within' and use it to validate all number of subjective arguments. Personally I think of the spiritual domain as immanently present 'to' the corporeal, but that 'to' can feel closer and more profound even than 'in', if you get my drift.

Some inside others outside, and yet it's all the same I would assume.

Yes, as the terms don't actually apply, but waxing lyrical, yes absolutely.

She said then I was with him and I was daily his delight …

Yes.

That's wisdom and I would say that's who they are, the feminine among them...

Remembering they are without gender, but I nit-pick ...

... who from fear leads us to comfort joy and peace...

Well the masculine do, too, don't be too down on the guys. Although one could, I suppose, ascribe masculine roles (for sexist reasons) to the archangels, the heavy-hitters like Michael, but then I suppose the feminine angels would nod knowingly to each other and say "bless" after all, anyone who thinks a 'feminine angel' could not 'clean up Dodge', as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, is under-estimating the feminine by a galactic quantity .

... a lot like Jesus was said to do.

Yes, well, He's the boss ...

So yeah, I like your answer or rather St. Thomas' answer: One.

I'm not sure if he's branching into Quantum Realms when he's discussing angels.

I like even better he uses the term 'virtual':
"... but there is no such (dimensive) quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one." (Q52 a1) ... Sheesh ... virtual worlds in the thirteenth century. Who'd have thunk? That Thomas, what a dude

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yes, angels are spirit, but then there are choirs of angels, so yes, they are all spirit, but theyare not all the same. In fact Aquinas argues, quite logically, that each and every angel is its own unique species.


No, you have to follow the logic of the argument in the Summa.

Angels do not 'occupy' any space as we do; they are not corporeal bodies.


Oh, yes! Although 'inside' and 'outside' are again spatial determinations and thus open to error of interpretation. Literalists make great play of 'look within' and use it to validate all number of subjective arguments. Personally I think of the spiritual domain as immanently present 'to' the corporeal, but that 'to' can feel closer and more profound even than 'in', if you get my drift.


Yes, as the terms don't actually apply, but waxing lyrical, yes absolutely.


Yes.


Remembering they are without gender, but I nit-pick ...


Well the masculine do, too, don't be too down on the guys. Although one could, I suppose, ascribe masculine roles (for sexist reasons) to the archangels, the heavy-hitters like Michael, but then I suppose the feminine angels would nod knowingly to each other and say "bless" after all, anyone who thinks a 'feminine angel' could not 'clean up Dodge', as it were, in the twinkling of an eye, is under-estimating the feminine by a galactic quantity .


Yes, well, He's the boss ...


I'm not sure if he's branching into Quantum Realms when he's discussing angels.

I like even better he uses the term 'virtual':
"... but there is no such (dimensive) quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one." (Q52 a1) ... Sheesh ... virtual worlds in the thirteenth century. Who'd have thunk? That Thomas, what a dude

A bit of a scientist I would have to venture. Also, if the Logos was in the beginning … As a masculine, and per Proverbs, particularly Proverbs 8, then both the masculine and feminine aspect of the Logos was in the beginning. Maybe it's like the merging of the feminine and masculine together that creates and the wisdom shared between that also establishes a bit better balance in living. I wonder though, if the masculine heavy hitters like Michael would be much of anything without the feminine heavy hitters like Lucifer. I'm sure the music is pretty good either way, but couple those two together and Whoah! Talk about a powerhouse of a reconciliation!

 

[wil]

All of them that can dance.

 

[Gatekeeper]

How many dances are allowed? I mean on the head of a pin? I enjoy writing, the thoughts that come by way of inspiration … I'm sure you catch my meaning.

 

[Thomas]

Also, if the Logos was in the beginning … As a masculine, and per Proverbs, particularly Proverbs 8, then both the masculine and feminine aspect of the Logos was in the beginning.

Yes, in that the Logos Itself transcends gender.

I wonder though, if the masculine heavy hitters like Michael would be much of anything without the feminine heavy hitters like Lucifer.

Whoa! Whoever said Lucifer was feminine?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yes, in that the Logos Itself transcends gender.


Whoa! Whoever said Lucifer was feminine?

I did and it would seem right to. The most beautiful of all Gods angels, a chief musician, and if I had to guess … a wife.

 

[Thomas]

I did and it would seem right to.

I have no idea on what possible grounds you can come to that conclusion...

The most beautiful of all Gods angels,

Ratgher a sexist notion if one assumes therefore the 'most beautiful' means 'feminine'?

... a chief musician ...

Where does anyone say that?

... and if I had to guess … a wife.

Nah, well off the track there, old chum.

As we are on the philosophy board, it's worth pointing out that while Lucifer has become synonymous with Satan, largely thanks to Ezekiel and Isaiah, but the word Lucifer appears four times in Scripture — Isaiah 14:12 as a reference to the King of Babylon, brought down by pride. 2 Peter 1:19 (meaning "morning star") is a reference to Jesus, Job 11:17 ("the light of the morning") and Psalms 110:3 ("the dawn").

I can't think of anywhere Lucifer is seen as a signifier or representative of the feminine, quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Gatekeeper]

It means that to me … I would assume you have your preferences too.