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]

The story of Lot, his daughters and angelic beings may be analogous in that it wasn't describing (intended to describe) an actual event.

Where does the story actually start?

The narrative begins in Genesis 18 when three visitors, who are later revealed to be angels, appear to Abraham near the oaks of Mamre. The angels inform Abraham and his wife Sarah that she will bear a son, Isaac, despite her old age.

The story involving Lot begins in Genesis 19. The two angels arrive in the evening at the gate of Sodom, where Lot is residing. Lot invites them into his home and offers them hospitality. However, the men of Sodom surround Lot's house, demanding that he bring out the visitors so that they can engage in immoral acts with them. Lot, seeking to protect his guests, offers his own daughters instead, but the angels intervene to rescue Lot and his family.

The angels instruct Lot to flee the city with his family before the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot and his daughters leave the city, and as they flee to the mountains, Lot's wife disobeys the angels' warning not to look back and is turned into a pillar of salt. The narrative continues with Lot and his daughters living in a cave, and a controversial incident follows involving Lot and his daughters that has been interpreted in various ways.

The story is often seen as a moral lesson and has been interpreted in different ways by various religious traditions and scholars. Some view it as a historical account, while others interpret it symbolically or allegorically. The focus may be on themes such as hospitality, obedience, moral decay, or divine judgment, depending on the interpretation.

If we incorporate Jung’s archetypes into the mix, what might we find, based upon the idea that all biblical stories can be traced to the psyche of individual human beings and collective psyche of humanity?

Incorporating Jungian archetypes into the interpretation of biblical stories, particularly the story of Lot and his daughters, one might explore psychological and symbolic dimensions. Jung proposed that archetypes are universal, recurring symbols and themes in human experience that are present in myths, dreams, and religious narratives. Applying this lens to the story of Lot, his daughters, and the angelic beings could yield several possible interpretations:

1. The Shadow and Collective Unconscious:
• Lot's experiences in Sodom and Gomorrah, with their moral decay and wickedness, could be seen as a manifestation of the collective shadow—the darker and repressed aspects of human nature. The destruction of these cities might symbolize the need to confront and integrate the shadow for personal and collective growth.

2. The Anima and Animus:
• Lot's offer of his daughters to the men of Sodom might be interpreted in terms of the anima (the feminine aspect within a man) and the animus (the masculine aspect within a woman). This could symbolize a distorted or unbalanced expression of these archetypal energies within Lot, reflecting inner conflicts related to gender roles and relationships.

3. The Hero's Journey:
• Lot's journey, from his hospitality to the angels to the escape from the doomed city, could be viewed as a hero's journey. The hero archetype often involves overcoming challenges and facing the unknown. Lot's actions, including his decision to leave the familiar and confront the destruction of his home, may be seen as a symbolic journey of personal transformation.

4. The Divine Child:
• The birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah in the preceding chapters might be associated with the archetype of the divine child, representing new beginnings and the promise of a positive future. This could contrast with the destructive events in Sodom and Gomorrah and highlight the potential for renewal and redemption.

5. The Trickster:
• The behavior of the men of Sodom and Lot's offer of his daughters could be analyzed through the lens of the trickster archetype. The trickster often disrupts societal norms and challenges established structures, forcing individuals or communities to reevaluate their values and actions.

Interpreting biblical stories through Jungian archetypes adds a psychological layer, suggesting that these narratives reflect universal aspects of the human psyche. This approach invites exploration of the characters and events as symbolic representations of inner conflicts, personal growth, and the dynamics of the collective unconscious.

Re the archetypes why would Lot think that the angels would need protecting from a raging mob?
Re that, what do the angels - as archetypes within a human psyche - represent ?

Lot's attempt to protect the angels from the mob in Sodom can be interpreted through various psychological and symbolic lenses. When applying Jungian archetypes, the analysis often involves exploring the characters and events as representations of universal human experiences and psychological dynamics.

1. Hospitality and the Animus:
• Lot's willingness to protect the angels at the expense of offering his own daughters might be seen as an expression of the hospitality archetype. In ancient cultures, the duty to protect guests was highly valued. Lot, as a host, felt compelled to shield his guests (animus) from harm, even if it meant making a morally questionable decision.

2. The Heroic Protector:
• Lot's actions can also be understood as embodying the hero archetype, where the hero takes on the role of a protector against overwhelming odds. Lot is faced with a hostile and immoral crowd, and he chooses to stand up for what he perceives as right, even if his methods are ethically problematic.

As for the angels, if we consider them as archetypes within the human psyche:

1. Messenger and Higher Self:
• Angels are often messengers in religious traditions, delivering divine guidance or messages. In a psychological interpretation, the angels might represent a connection to a higher aspect of the self—the transcendent or spiritual dimension within an individual. They could symbolize the potential for insight, intuition, or divine guidance.

2. Psychopomp and Transformation:
• Angels, in various traditions, are associated with guiding souls or individuals through transitions or transformations. Psychologically, the angels may represent the potential for personal growth, transformation, and navigating the challenges of life.

3. Guardian and Protector:
• Angels are commonly perceived as protectors. Psychologically, they might symbolize the innate capacity within individuals to protect and care for the vulnerable aspects of their own psyche. Lot's desire to shield the angels could reflect a need for protection and preservation of higher, more virtuous qualities within oneself.

What would the daughters represent, at the time of the offering and the aforementioned, subsequent events once they had escaped?

The interpretation of Lot's daughters in the biblical narrative, particularly in the context of the offering and the subsequent events, involves considering them as symbolic figures within the story. Different interpretations exist, and the following are some potential perspectives:

1. Symbol of Sacrifice and Obedience:
• Lot's willingness to offer his daughters to the mob in Sodom might be seen as a representation of extreme sacrifice and obedience to the perceived moral norms of hospitality. In this context, the daughters could symbolize the cost of adherence to societal expectations and the lengths to which individuals may go to fulfill perceived duties.

2. Victims of Circumstances:
• Lot's daughters, who later escape to the mountains with their father, could be viewed as victims of the destructive environment in Sodom and Gomorrah. In this interpretation, they may represent the consequences of living in a morally corrupt society, forced to adapt and make extreme choices for survival.


3. Survival and the Will to Continue the Lineage:
• After fleeing the doomed cities, Lot's daughters, believing that they and their father are the last survivors, take drastic measures to ensure the continuation of their lineage. From this perspective, the daughters could symbolize the primal instinct for survival and the human drive to ensure the perpetuation of one's family and lineage.

4. Ambiguity and Moral Complexity:
• Some interpretations emphasize the ambiguity and moral complexity of the story. Lot's daughters' actions might be seen as a desperate, morally compromised response to extraordinary circumstances. In this view, they could symbolize the gray areas of human behavior and the difficult choices individuals may face in challenging situations.

5. The Theme of Incest and Cultural Critique:
• The narrative involving Lot's daughters engaging in incestuous relations with their father raises ethical and cultural questions. Some interpretations suggest that this element of the story serves as a critique of the moral degradation of Sodom and Gomorrah, emphasizing the extreme consequences of living in such a corrupt society.

What would Lot's' wife represent?

In a symbolic or archetypal analysis, Lot's wife could represent several themes:

Attachment to the Past:

Lot's wife is famously transformed into a pillar of salt when she looks back toward the city of Sodom as it is being destroyed. This act is often interpreted as a warning against clinging to the past and being unwilling to let go of what is no longer healthy or beneficial. In this sense, she may symbolize the danger of excessive attachment to the familiar, even when it is destructive.

Resistance to Change:

The act of looking back may also be seen as resistance to change. Lot and his family were instructed not to look back, emphasizing the importance of moving forward and embracing a new chapter in life. Lot's wife, by disobeying this instruction, could symbolize the reluctance to accept change and the consequences of resisting transformation.

Lack of Faith or Obedience:

The biblical account suggests that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt as a consequence of her disobedience or lack of faith in the divine warning. From this perspective, she may represent the negative consequences of not following divine guidance or failing to trust in a higher purpose.

Symbol of Judgment:

Lot's wife's transformation could be interpreted as a symbol of divine judgment. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is often viewed as an act of divine punishment for the moral corruption of the cities. Her fate serves as a cautionary example of the consequences that may befall those who are unwilling to align with a higher moral order.

Loss of Identity:

The transformation into a pillar of salt could symbolize a loss of identity. Salt, in biblical symbolism, is associated with preservation, and turning into salt might signify a form of petrification or stagnation. Lot's wife, by looking back, may have forfeited her opportunity for growth and personal development.

The wife aspect could be seen as that which needs to be let go of...

Viewing Lot's wife as a representation of that which needs to be let go of underscores the theme of detachment from the past and the consequences of clinging to what is no longer beneficial.

In this sense, Lot's wife becomes a cautionary symbol, encouraging individuals to embrace growth, transformation, and the forward movement of life. The story serves as a reminder of the importance of letting go of attachments that may impede one's journey toward a more positive and fulfilling future.

Likewise the doomed cities represent the same thing - perhaps associated with things which are not as personally but nonetheless for practical reasons, are to be left behind - destroyed of their prior influence.

The Call to Higher Values:

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah may serve as a call to higher moral and spiritual values. It could symbolize the necessity of abandoning behaviors, attitudes, or environments that are contrary to these values. The act of leaving represents a commitment to a more virtuous and purposeful life.


The theme of sexuality in the story of Lot, particularly in the context of Lot's offer of his daughters and the later incident involving his daughters in the cave, has been a subject of interpretation and debate. When examining this theme through the lens of archetypes and psychological symbolism, several perspectives can be considered:

Sexuality as a Symbol of Moral Decay:

The moral degradation of Sodom and Gomorrah is often associated with the theme of sexual immorality. From an archetypal standpoint, this can be seen as a symbolic representation of the shadow side of human sexuality—the distortion and misuse of a natural and vital aspect of human experience.

The Shadow and Repressed Desires:

The biblical narrative may be interpreted as a symbolic expression of the collective shadow and repressed desires. Lot's offer of his daughters and the subsequent incestuous relations in the cave could represent the distorted or repressed aspects of sexuality that surface when societal norms break down or become corrupted.

Sexuality as a Testing Ground:

Some interpretations suggest that the sexual themes in the story serve as a testing ground for the characters, highlighting their moral choices and the consequences of their actions. In this context, the sexual elements become archetypal symbols representing the challenges individuals face in navigating complex moral dilemmas.

The Trickster and Disruption of Norms:

The sexual themes in the story may also be viewed through the lens of the trickster archetype, where societal norms and expectations are disrupted. The narrative challenges conventional ideas about familial and societal boundaries, prompting reflection on the consequences of such disruptions.

Sexuality as a Symbol of Survival:

The later incident involving Lot's daughters in the cave is often interpreted as a desperate attempt to ensure the continuation of their lineage. In this light, the sexual elements become symbolic of the primal instinct for survival and the extremes individuals may go to in the face of perceived existential threats.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible is often associated with the theme of homosexuality, particularly in the context of the attempted assault on the angelic visitors in Sodom. This interpretation has led to the term "sodomy" being historically associated with same-sex relations.

When examining the homosexual aspect of the story through the lens of archetypes and psychological symbolism, several perspectives can be considered:

Symbolism of Moral Decay:

The attempted assault on the angelic visitors may be seen as a symbolic representation of the moral decay of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. From an archetypal perspective, it could symbolize the distortion and misuse of human sexuality, reflecting the shadow side of collective behavior.

The Shadow and Social Outcasts:

The residents of Sodom rejecting and attempting to harm the angelic visitors could be interpreted as a manifestation of the collective shadow, representing the tendency to scapegoat or harm individuals perceived as different or outside societal norms. The story may highlight the destructive consequences of intolerance and prejudice.

Archetypal Themes of Transformation:

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's escape could be viewed as archetypal themes of transformation and renewal. The rejection of harmful societal norms, even those related to sexuality, might symbolize the necessity of leaving behind destructive patterns in order to pursue a more authentic and virtuous life.

Sexuality as a Moral Test:

The homosexual aspects in the story might also be seen as a moral test for the characters involved. The narrative could serve as a symbolic exploration of how individuals and societies respond to differences, challenging them to make moral choices in the face of societal expectations.

The interpretation of these themes should be done with sensitivity, recognizing that cultural and religious perspectives on homosexuality have evolved over time. The story has been interpreted in various ways, with some emphasizing its historical and moral lessons, while others criticize it for contributing to stigmatization and discrimination.

Regardless of the specific cultural or historical context in which a narrative is written, archetypal elements can transcend individual perspectives and speak to universal themes within the human experience. Archetypes operate on a level that goes beyond the particulars of any given situation or cultural setting.

In the case of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, one could potentially interpret the narrative from different perspectives, including a homosexual one, while still recognizing the archetypal themes of moral choices, societal decay, and the need for transformation. Archetypes provide a framework that allows for a more abstract and universal understanding of the human condition, allowing the potential bridging of diverse interpretations that resonate with various audiences.

While cultural and historical contexts can influence how stories are told and understood, archetypes offer a way to explore deeper, more timeless aspects of the human psyche and collective experience. This flexibility in interpretation is one of the reasons why archetypal analysis remains a valuable tool for understanding and appreciating diverse narratives across cultures and time periods.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #31]

Monumental, but I concur that it can be regarded as a 'human moral condition' story rather than factual (which is improbable). But of course I reckon the internal evidence suggests this is not a philosophical story but a polemical one, with the Exilesin Babylon I guess writing why eveyrone will one day be the (foreign) slaves of the Hebrews.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #31]

Monumental, but I concur that it can be regarded as a 'human moral condition' story rather than factual (which is improbable). But of course I reckon the internal evidence suggests this is not a philosophical story but a polemical one, with the Exilesin Babylon I guess writing why eveyrone will one day be the (foreign) slaves of the Hebrews.

The same can be applied to the concepts "Hebrews" and "(foreign) slaves " re the Jungian Archetypes.

Indeed the idea of "a people" can be seen as " many voices within" not all of which are in agreement with one another.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #31]

Monumental, but I concur that it can be regarded as a 'human moral condition' story rather than factual (which is improbable). But of course I reckon the internal evidence suggests this is not a philosophical story but a polemical one, with the Exilesin Babylon I guess writing why eveyrone will one day be the (foreign) slaves of the Hebrews.

The same can be applied to the concepts "Hebrews" and "(foreign) slaves " re the Jungian Archetypes.

Indeed the idea of "a people" can be seen as " many voices within" not all of which are in agreement with one another.

No reason why they should be. They work perfectly well in the context of a people who considered themselves a separate race of people and foreigners were different, with a different religion. Indeed, the religion and laws were there to tell the Hebrews they were different from the people around, from whom they could take slaves and were destined to be the servants or slaves on the Israelites in some distant future.

If we want to see it as some philosophical or sociological archetype, then we are in 'Metaphorical territory, and the Bible is of little use to us us other than a cutious old book of myths and legends. Including the whole of genesis, Creation, Flood and Lot's lot.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

No reason why they should be.

Nor is there any reason why they shouldn't be.

Unless you are arguing that everything external to do with human behaviour, is not sourced with everything within the human mind (internal).

In interpreting these terms as symbolic representations of "many voices within" this aligns with the idea that archetypes encapsulate a range of psychological, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. The internal conflicts, differing perspectives, and potential for transformation within a collective identity can be seen to be mirrored in the interplay of archetypal themes.

Jungian archetypes, with their emphasis on the universal aspects of human experience, provide a framework for understanding the complexities and contradictions within collective identities. By viewing these archetypes as dynamic forces, one can explore the internal dialogue, conflicts, and potential for integration that shape the narratives surrounding groups of people.

This observation adds a layer of depth to the interpretation, showcasing the flexibility of Jungian archetypes in capturing the intricate dynamics of human stories, whether they be philosophical, polemical, or a blend of both.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

No reason why they should be.

Nor is there any reason why they shouldn't be.

Unless you are arguing that everything external to do with human behaviour, is not sourced with everything within the human mind (internal).

In interpreting these terms as symbolic representations of "many voices within" this aligns with the idea that archetypes encapsulate a range of psychological, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. The internal conflicts, differing perspectives, and potential for transformation within a collective identity can be seen to be mirrored in the interplay of archetypal themes.

Jungian archetypes, with their emphasis on the universal aspects of human experience, provide a framework for understanding the complexities and contradictions within collective identities. By viewing these archetypes as dynamic forces, one can explore the internal dialogue, conflicts, and potential for integration that shape the narratives surrounding groups of people.

This observation adds a layer of depth to the interpretation, showcasing the flexibility of Jungian archetypes in capturing the intricate dynamics of human stories, whether they be philosophical, polemical, or a blend of both.

That's irrelevant to the Bible or the Jewish part of it, anyway. They regard themselves as a separate religious and cultural (and even racial identity, referring to some DNA testing that - they say - points to a Middle Eastern provenance) and even more so before the dispersal. The point being that the Lot and Cain stories contrast the Hebrews as God's favoured people and the descendants of Cain and Lot as a different people intended by God to be subordinate to the Israelites.

So that is what the story is about, and never mind Jung. Because, like 'metaphoirical', it means 'not actually true', as, if it was, you wouldn't need to involve psychiatric imaginings.

Bottom line, once it becomes symbolic, it ceases to have any importance for anyone but students of ancient takes and legends.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

No reason why they should be.

Nor is there any reason why they shouldn't be.

Unless you are arguing that everything external to do with human behaviour, is not sourced with everything within the human mind (internal).

In interpreting these terms as symbolic representations of "many voices within" this aligns with the idea that archetypes encapsulate a range of psychological, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. The internal conflicts, differing perspectives, and potential for transformation within a collective identity can be seen to be mirrored in the interplay of archetypal themes.

Jungian archetypes, with their emphasis on the universal aspects of human experience, provide a framework for understanding the complexities and contradictions within collective identities. By viewing these archetypes as dynamic forces, one can explore the internal dialogue, conflicts, and potential for integration that shape the narratives surrounding groups of people.

This observation adds a layer of depth to the interpretation, showcasing the flexibility of Jungian archetypes in capturing the intricate dynamics of human stories, whether they be philosophical, polemical, or a blend of both.

That's irrelevant to the Bible or the Jewish part of it, anyway.

Is this according to your atheist view or something else?
You are missing the point as to where the source of the externally manifested thing comes from.

They regard themselves as a separate religious and cultural (and even racial identity, referring to some DNA testing that - they say - points to a Middle Eastern provenance) and even more so before the dispersal. The point being that the Lot and Cain stories contrast the Hebrews as God's favoured people and the descendants of Cain and Lot as a different people intended by God to be subordinate to the Israelites.

That is indeed the point. From the source, this has derived. It is acknowledgment of said source which has manifested this belief.

So that is what the story is about, and never mind Jung.

Not to forget that Jung is also a descendant of these very same people.

Because, like 'metaphoirical', it means 'not actually true', as, if it was, you wouldn't need to involve psychiatric imaginings.

This is also misinformed critique. The metaphorical is the outward manifestation of the mind. "psychiatric" is about/to do with the mind and "imaginings" are not necessarily "not actually true"/to be blanketed under the heading of "untrue".

Bottom line, once it becomes symbolic, it ceases to have any importance for anyone but students of ancient takes and legends.

Among others. It is simply of "no importance" to an atheist/to atheism or those of materialistic persuasion who then try and tell others "how things really are" and see no relevance in mindfulness.
Symbolism is not seen or understood in the manner you argue by those who delve into the depths of mindfulness and discover where and why such are relevant/worth taking into consideration.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34]

No reason why they should be.

Nor is there any reason why they shouldn't be.

Unless you are arguing that everything external to do with human behaviour, is not sourced with everything within the human mind (internal).

In interpreting these terms as symbolic representations of "many voices within" this aligns with the idea that archetypes encapsulate a range of psychological, cultural, and symbolic dimensions. The internal conflicts, differing perspectives, and potential for transformation within a collective identity can be seen to be mirrored in the interplay of archetypal themes.

Jungian archetypes, with their emphasis on the universal aspects of human experience, provide a framework for understanding the complexities and contradictions within collective identities. By viewing these archetypes as dynamic forces, one can explore the internal dialogue, conflicts, and potential for integration that shape the narratives surrounding groups of people.

This observation adds a layer of depth to the interpretation, showcasing the flexibility of Jungian archetypes in capturing the intricate dynamics of human stories, whether they be philosophical, polemical, or a blend of both.

That's irrelevant to the Bible or the Jewish part of it, anyway.

Is this according to your atheist view or something else?
You are missing the point as to where the source of the externally manifested thing comes from.

They regard themselves as a separate religious and cultural (and even racial identity, referring to some DNA testing that - they say - points to a Middle Eastern provenance) and even more so before the dispersal. The point being that the Lot and Cain stories contrast the Hebrews as God's favoured people and the descendants of Cain and Lot as a different people intended by God to be subordinate to the Israelites.

That is indeed the point. From the source, this has derived. It is acknowledgment of said source which has manifested this belief.

So that is what the story is about, and never mind Jung.

Not to forget that Jung is also a descendant of these very same people.

Because, like 'metaphoirical', it means 'not actually true', as, if it was, you wouldn't need to involve psychiatric imaginings.

This is also misinformed critique. The metaphorical is the outward manifestation of the mind. "psychiatric" is about/to do with the mind and "imaginings" are not necessarily "not actually true"/to be blanketed under the heading of "untrue".

Bottom line, once it becomes symbolic, it ceases to have any importance for anyone but students of ancient takes and legends.

Among others. It is simply of "no importance" to an atheist/to atheism or those of materialistic persuasion who then try and tell others "how things really are" and see no relevance in mindfulness.
Symbolism is not seen or understood in the manner you argue by those who delve into the depths of mindfulness and discover where and why such are relevant/worth taking into consideration.

Nothing much to see here, folks. Yes, I (and other atheists) try to tell people how things really are - as we see it. Isn't that what you do, Mr Pot - kettle? We know we could be wrong. That's what discussion is about. People have to decide and they will know a personal snipe rather than any kindof meaningful response, because they have often seen it before.

Mind, I can see the possible value of a discussion about the thinking and purpose of the Lot story, but that's all my post was doing. You are welcome to post your Jungian theories and I'm entitled to say the stories are merely polemic with no basis in factuality.

Your argument is flawed, too. Indeed evasive anda red herring. Sure metaphorical might not mean necessarily untrue where the facts are unclear, but when (say) we have evidence that Genesis is untrue, then 'metaphorical' just means Untrue - in that context.

Aside from If Creation, Flood and Babel is (on evidence) wrong the probability is that the rest is wrong, too, the improbability of the etymological descendants from a dubious sourse (says the story) looks like politics designed to smear Israel's political rivals.

Thus we are not talking without indications the story is false (if Mrs Lot turning into a salt lick didn't tell us that much) 'metaphorical' does mean 'untrue' in this context - or so I argue.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

Nothing much to see here, folks.

Especially if you have an atheist/materialist outlook. Otherwise what is offered to be seen, is enough for the task at hand (finding out what the truth might best be).

Yes, I (and other atheists) try to tell people how things really are - as we see it. Isn't that what you do, Mr Pot - kettle? We know we could be wrong. That's what discussion is about.

If you want to discuss or otherwise offer critique for my view in return for the critique I offered for your view, please don't be shy. I too, am here to learn.

People have to decide and they will know a personal snipe rather than any kind of meaningful response, because they have often seen it before.

If all you saw in my critique of your words was "a personal snipe" rather than any kind of meaningful response, I am not surprised, since - as I noted - one cannot understand in any capacity - the idea of a Mind Behind Creation if one holds the atheist/materialist position. That is not "a personal snipe" by any stretch. It is simply a matter of fact that you should (in theory at least) be able to understand and accept.

Mind, I can see the possible value of a discussion about the thinking and purpose of the Lot story, but that's all my post was doing. You are welcome to post your Jungian theories and I'm entitled to say the stories are merely polemic with no basis in factuality.

And I am entitled to critique them to show how wrong they are, even if in that you personally may not understand enough of what I am arguing to be able to discuss anything of the nature I am offering, let alone critique it.

Your argument is flawed, too.

Then show it to be the case, rather than hand-wave it away with nonsense about the Hebrew Culture. That culture claims to have been shaped by a Mind they refer to as they do. The Jungian Archetypes show there might well be something to that idea.

Indeed evasive anda red herring. Sure metaphorical might not mean necessarily untrue where the facts are unclear, but when (say) we have evidence that Genesis is untrue, then 'metaphorical' just means Untrue - in that context.

Aside from If Creation, Flood and Babel is (on evidence) wrong the probability is that the rest is wrong, too, the improbability of the etymological descendants from a dubious sourse (says the story) looks like politics designed to smear Israel's political rivals.

Yes - one could say it "looks like" anything, but generalizing and sweeping everything into one tidy pile of "I tell you so" doesn't mean that is what it actually is.
If one is unable to include for serious consideration the psychology involved as one of the many possibilities (of explanation - whatever the convenience for one doing so is,) gets one no closer to any truth on any matter.

Thus we are not talking without indications the story is false (if Mrs Lot turning into a salt lick didn't tell us that much) 'metaphorical' does mean 'untrue' in this context - or so I argue.

Yes. And I argue differently - something which you are unwilling to accept as valid. I simply pointed out WHY this is the case. That atheism/materialism as a position, appears to prevent one from accepting such views.
Why that is the case is unknown and theoretically shouldn't be (at least not for atheism) but "views are views" and discussion won't take place as a result.

One simply cannot see what what believes doesn't exist to be "seen."

The Hebrews obviously "saw" something...and recorded what it was, best they could...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

Nothing much to see here, folks.

Especially if you have an atheist/materialist outlook. Otherwise what is offered to be seen, is enough for the task at hand (finding out what the truth might best be).

Yes, I (and other atheists) try to tell people how things really are - as we see it. Isn't that what you do, Mr Pot - kettle? We know we could be wrong. That's what discussion is about.

If you want to discuss or otherwise offer critique for my view in return for the critique I offered for your view, please don't be shy. I too, am here to learn.

People have to decide and they will know a personal snipe rather than any kind of meaningful response, because they have often seen it before.

If all you saw in my critique of your words was "a personal snipe" rather than any kind of meaningful response, I am not surprised, since - as I noted - one cannot understand in any capacity - the idea of a Mind Behind Creation if one holds the atheist/materialist position. That is not "a personal snipe" by any stretch. It is simply a matter of fact that you should (in theory at least) be able to understand and accept.

Mind, I can see the possible value of a discussion about the thinking and purpose of the Lot story, but that's all my post was doing. You are welcome to post your Jungian theories and I'm entitled to say the stories are merely polemic with no basis in factuality.

And I am entitled to critique them to show how wrong they are, even if in that you personally may not understand enough of what I am arguing to be able to discuss anything of the nature I am offering, let alone critique it.

Your argument is flawed, too.

Then show it to be the case, rather than hand-wave it away with nonsense about the Hebrew Culture. That culture claims to have been shaped by a Mind they refer to as they do. The Jungian Archetypes show there might well be something to that idea.

Indeed evasive anda red herring. Sure metaphorical might not mean necessarily untrue where the facts are unclear, but when (say) we have evidence that Genesis is untrue, then 'metaphorical' just means Untrue - in that context.

Aside from If Creation, Flood and Babel is (on evidence) wrong the probability is that the rest is wrong, too, the improbability of the etymological descendants from a dubious sourse (says the story) looks like politics designed to smear Israel's political rivals.

Yes - one could say it "looks like" anything, but generalizing and sweeping everything into one tidy pile of "I tell you so" doesn't mean that is what it actually is.
If one is unable to include for serious consideration the psychology involved as one of the many possibilities (of explanation - whatever the convenience for one doing so is,) gets one no closer to any truth on any matter.

Thus we are not talking without indications the story is false (if Mrs Lot turning into a salt lick didn't tell us that much) 'metaphorical' does mean 'untrue' in this context - or so I argue.

Yes. And I argue differently - something which you are unwilling to accept as valid. I simply pointed out WHY this is the case. That atheism/materialism as a position, appears to prevent one from accepting such views.
Why that is the case is unknown and theoretically shouldn't be (at least not for atheism) but "views are views" and discussion won't take place as a result.

One simply cannot see what what believes doesn't exist to be "seen."

The Hebrews obviously "saw" something...and recorded what it was, best they could...

This - "Is this according to your atheist view or something else" is a personal snipe, as it serves no relevant purpose but to accuse me of 'atheist' bias. It is as irrelevant as Jung (or Freud) being Jewish. It doesn't make the Bible any more true or even somehow a textbook of psychology. It is irrelevancy either to drag in a pet theory than makes no odds or is an effort to make a book without any real relevance today, somehow relevant.

Anyone who posts here is giving their opinion with (mostly) reasons why they think so. You as well as I.You don't have a bias yourself if you 'say so' as much as I do?