I think a more useful phrasing of that question might be “what is it about that comment that LW (net) doesn’t want more of?” I hadn’t previously downvoted it, but in the interests of getting to answer you in the definitive first person rather than the hypothetical third, I just went back and did so.
I read AlexMennen’s comment and ask myself: are they attempting to suggest that Luke 1:26-38 was originally intended as a mundane story about a local king taking one of his subjects as a mate, and is being misunderstood as a supernatural story due to some kind of translation error? That it was a mythical exaggeration of an earlier mundane story? That it is a supernatural story, but the God it describes is essentially a rapist and therefore morally repugnant? That it is a supernatural story and the rape it describes is endorsed by God and therefore OK? Something else? Some combination? I don’t know.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that AlexMennen doesn’t really know either; they just saw an opportunity to accumulate status by flinging metaphorical feces at a generally identified enemy of the tribe, or by making a vague gesture in the direction of an analysis without actually committing themselves to a refutable claim.
I don’t think this is a big deal, which is why I didn’t bother downvoting initially… like any other human forum, LW is full of this sort of posturing, and I mostly just ignore it. But I do think LW is improved by actual analysis and weakened by pure statusmongering.
It oughtn’t be necessary for me to say this, but in case it is: I am not and never have been a Christian, do not and never have believed that Jesus (or anyone else) was conceived through miraculous divine intervention, and do not believe that the Bible is any more supernatural in its origins (by any definition of supernatural that an actual English speaker is likely to endorse) than Finnegan’s Wake, though I did believe something like the latter as a child about the Old Testament. My ox is not being gored here.
Interesting analysis, thank you. My own reading was that AlexMennen showed that the canonical story with only minor changes matches the EY’s narrative pretty well, so I upvoted it.
FWIW, the original post annoyed me in many of the same ways, and would have done so far more if EY hadn’t at least made a nod towards articulating the point he was making.
The answer most straightforwardly consistent with stated LW policy on downvotes is because at least 5 people don’t want more comments like that.
This is trivially true, but why don’t they?
I think a more useful phrasing of that question might be “what is it about that comment that LW (net) doesn’t want more of?” I hadn’t previously downvoted it, but in the interests of getting to answer you in the definitive first person rather than the hypothetical third, I just went back and did so.
I read AlexMennen’s comment and ask myself: are they attempting to suggest that Luke 1:26-38 was originally intended as a mundane story about a local king taking one of his subjects as a mate, and is being misunderstood as a supernatural story due to some kind of translation error? That it was a mythical exaggeration of an earlier mundane story? That it is a supernatural story, but the God it describes is essentially a rapist and therefore morally repugnant? That it is a supernatural story and the rape it describes is endorsed by God and therefore OK? Something else? Some combination? I don’t know.
If I had to guess, I’d guess that AlexMennen doesn’t really know either; they just saw an opportunity to accumulate status by flinging metaphorical feces at a generally identified enemy of the tribe, or by making a vague gesture in the direction of an analysis without actually committing themselves to a refutable claim.
I don’t think this is a big deal, which is why I didn’t bother downvoting initially… like any other human forum, LW is full of this sort of posturing, and I mostly just ignore it. But I do think LW is improved by actual analysis and weakened by pure statusmongering.
It oughtn’t be necessary for me to say this, but in case it is: I am not and never have been a Christian, do not and never have believed that Jesus (or anyone else) was conceived through miraculous divine intervention, and do not believe that the Bible is any more supernatural in its origins (by any definition of supernatural that an actual English speaker is likely to endorse) than Finnegan’s Wake, though I did believe something like the latter as a child about the Old Testament. My ox is not being gored here.
Interesting analysis, thank you. My own reading was that AlexMennen showed that the canonical story with only minor changes matches the EY’s narrative pretty well, so I upvoted it.
(nods) It certainly does.
FWIW, the original post annoyed me in many of the same ways, and would have done so far more if EY hadn’t at least made a nod towards articulating the point he was making.