Why would angels need protecting from a raging mob?

[OnceConvinced]

The story of Lot tells us that a couple of angels visited Lot and that a gay mob demanded they be brought out so they could have their way with them. Lot then did the absolutely atrocious act of offering up his daughters to them to protect the angels.

The question I have about this story and I can never get a straight answer is why would angels need to be protected anyway? Angels are spiritual beings and even if they somehow manifested in human bodies I still don't see what harm could possibly befall them.

So why did these angels need to be protected from the angry gay mob?

[William]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #45]

the Mangler Argument Fallacy

Did you make that up?

Have you never heard of that before?

No. That is why I asked.

Why not google it?

My bad. I thought to write that I had tried googling it. The word "Mangle" was struck out of the search.
I then re-searched instructing google to include the word and came up with stuff which appears to show the word used is not the one from the English language

" Ad hominem-argument

Begrunnelse rediger. Lær mer. Mangler referanser: Dette avsnittet trenger flere eller bedre referanser for verifikasjon."

and

"Bilde mangler". Informal Fallacies. Douglas. Walton Bok · Engelsk · 1987 ... What is a Fallacy?; NOTES; CHAPTER 4: LOGICAL DIALOGUE-GAMES; 1. Different ...

Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation

Forfatter: info mangler. Bog. Denne udgave; Bog, paperback; Engelsk. Indgår i ... Legal argumentation Absence of Evidence Ad Hominem Fallacies Anti-Theoretical ...

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to William in post #51]
Very well! I plan to explain the Mangler Argument Fallacy in a separate thread soon!

Stay on and be very very ware!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #51]
Very well! I plan to explain the Mangler Argument Fallacy in a separate thread soon!

Stay on and be very very ware!

I had a look and it could not be found. I did find the Wiki argument had an interesting comment - that today, some informal logical fallacies are being questioned, at least whether they always work.

I have argued for a long time that a 'you too' is valid if the other side is trying to claim the high moral ground, but they do just as bad, but it is valid in that an you to argument does not invalidate the point. e.g "That aircraft design will never fly." "Well you designed one last year and that didn't fly." It is invalid as the failure of the critic to make a better plane does not make the one being designed a good one - that depends only of the merits of the design. Of course with 'moral ground' it may be valid. If he claimed to be a better engineer and thus his critique was valid, his failure to make as good a plane himself would scupper that argument.

Bottom line, William could easily say what the 'mangler' argument was and we could evaluate it. I'll check - he may have done that rather than chucked in 'That fails because of the Mangler argument'. which would of course be worthless without saying why.

Ad! "But now I want to add another thought to the Mangler Argument Fallacy that arises everytime one assumes angels to be pure spiritual beings:" This is clear. It is of course a strawman argument or related to it. One is debunking an argument using a wrong understanding of thet the argument is.

It is the (valid - partly) argument when atheists argue about the God -claim. 'God climbed aboard another man's wife, without even asking her first" "But I'm not talking about That god".

Atheists do have to deal with Baggage getting in the way. It is nearly always Biblegod being disgussed and if it is something else, the debator ought to make that clear to begin with.

But here we have a 'mangler' argument that seems itself a stawman. Angels are spirit beings (or at least divine) and do not need protection from a mob. IF one argues that they lose their super -powers just to make the story work, then they do need to be protected. If they do not, then it requires that their protector only believed they would need protecting.

Yes this 'mangler' - 'That's not the kind of god (or angels) I was talking about" - is valid and we do hear it. But if it isn't mainstream church dogma we are discussing, then that ought to be made clear at the start, not sprung on the other side like a booby trap later on.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #51]
Very well! I plan to explain the Mangler Argument Fallacy in a separate thread soon!

Crickets are chirping. Perhaps you have been distracted?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to William in post #51]
Very well! I plan to explain the Mangler Argument Fallacy in a separate thread soon!

Crickets are chirping. Perhaps you have been distracted?

Hey, I am in good company there

Jesus did Say He’d Return within His Disciples’ Lifetimes

And yet he didnt arrive already
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... lifetimes/

But yer right! The Mangler Argument Fallacy needs explanation soon!

Where again is the certain thread of this forum that is most suitable for presenting New Fallacys