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 TRANSPONDER in post #40]

an effort to make a book without any real relevance today, somehow relevant.

Which is why I pointed out how both the "book" and the culture (Hebrew) would not be relevant to someone who thinks such is the case this according to "an atheist view" or "something else".

The "slight" that you postulate occured is besides the point and needn't have been brought into the discussion as some relevant "point" which needs "addressing" or is otherwise used as motivation for not taking Jungian archetypes into consideration (as a possible reason for why the story of these angels exist in the storyline).

Why these beings were not understood by Lot to require "protection".

The atheist who started this thread did not offer any alternative other than how he viewed the story and how he saw possible contradiction re said story.

Jungian archetypes aside, does the story convey the idea that Lot did not understand the power of Angels? Or perhaps it conveys that Lot did not at first realise that these strangers were Angels?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to William in post #41]
Why could today anyone be so sure that two angels do not need protection from a raging mob?

And why should Lot have believed this?

To simply assume so is just the Mangler Argument Fallacy.

For example:
We all know that Joseph Smith was threatened by an armed angel with a sword to accept poligamy.

Perhaps, if Joseph Smith would have had a firearm at hand, he could have shot the angel to death and the mormons would never have erred into polygamous ways.

Who knows . . . .

[William]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #42]

Not sure why you answered my post. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #41]
Why could today anyone be so sure that two angels do not need protection from a raging mob?

And why should Lot have believed this?

To simply assume so is just the Mangler Argument Fallacy.

For example:
We all know that Joseph Smith was threatened by an armed angel with a sword to accept poligamy.

Perhaps, if Joseph Smith would have had a firearm at hand, he could have shot the angel to death and the mormons would never have erred into polygamous ways.

Who knows . . . .

I do have a tendecy to wave such pinhead - dancing speculations aside, because the simple explanation is that none of it is true.

But it does have a hidden point about what angels are and what they are for. They are of course messengers, and are sent by God, and more often than not, from God.

If they are divine beings, they are, like United States Impe...sorry...Federation Starship phasers, adjusted in power to whatever the story requires. in short they are bit players in the Biblical story to do whatever is needed to make the screenplay work, like the angel (s) parked outside (or inside) the tomb ("What kept you? I've been waiting here all night!") to explain everything to the audience and that is all it is and all the angels are.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to William in post #43]
I wanted to add more speculation to your already achieved speculations.
This is a debate and the more we have to debate on, is the marrier.

But now I want to add another thought to the Mangler Argument Fallacy that arises everytime one assumes angels to be pure spiritual beings:

The bible tells of angels who threaten and do bodily harm to people.
One certain angel even slays thousands of warriors in one single night.

Does this sound rather spiritual or earthly to you

[LittleNipper]

What you might be missing is the opinion that perhaps Lot knew that the two messengers from GOD didn't need protection; however, what these two visitors from GOD could witness might just spell total doom and destruction with regard to the inhabitance of these vial cities. Lot did not know that the cities were to be destroyed yet. He likely rationalized that there might be a chance that these cities might be saved if these angels were kept inside and sheltered. Lot didn't seem to wish to leave Sodom. He was trapped with the mindset that the city life was comfortable. I mean, if you read the account, Lot even asked that Zoar be spared because it was small --- so he and his family would have a "have a place to go --- a refuge."

[LittleNipper]

[Replying to William in post #43]
I wanted to add more speculation to your already achieved speculations.
This is a debate and the more we have to debate on, is the marrier.

But now I want to add another thought to the Mangler Argument Fallacy that arises everytime one assumes angels to be pure spiritual beings:

The bible tells of angels who threaten and do bodily harm to people.
One certain angel even slays thousands of warriors in one single night.

Does this sound rather spiritual or earthly to you

It sounds like JUSTICE was SERVED!

[The Nice Centurion]

What you might be missing is the opinion that perhaps Lot knew that the two messengers from GOD didn't need protection; however, what these two visitors from GOD could witness might just spell total doom and destruction with regard to the inhabitance of these vial cities. Lot did not know that the cities were to be destroyed yet. He likely rationalized that there might be a chance that these cities might be saved if these angels were kept inside and sheltered. Lot didn't seem to wish to leave Sodom. He was trapped with the mindset that the city life was comfortable. I mean, if you read the account, Lot even asked that Zoar be spared because it was small --- so he and his family would have a "have a place to go --- a refuge."

Yes, this is a rational conclusion.
And I want to add:

When the FF first time encountered the Silver Surfer and Galactus, they attacked Galactus phisically and the Surfer surfed to defend Galactus in spite of knowing that his master could never lose this fight anyway.
For the Surfer it was a matter of honor to help punish the sacrilege of attacking Galactus.

Lot might have acted for similar reasons

Of course Lot was no Silver Surfer and had no superpowers, but we could say that his shown superpower here was to find the moral strength for choosing to sacrifice his daughters.

Or perhaps lot also highly assumed that the angels would not need to accept his sacrifice, cause they easily would defend themselves.

Anyway: His religion did leave Lot no choice, but to intervene as best as he could

[William]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #45]

the Mangler Argument Fallacy

Did you make that up?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #45]

the Mangler Argument Fallacy

Did you make that up?

Have you never heard of that before?

Why not google it?