what makes a person a person?

[Ksa]

I, on the other hand, believe it was made up. The whole lot of it.. and that 'virgin births' were just the 'in thing' that people expected of demigod characters.

And... considering that a certain Mr. Hitler is not really a very good example for 'the worst!'... imma agree, and also say that it is obvious

Oh, you were talking about Mary? *titters* Oh my God, that is hilarious Wait, wait... you're... you're serious!?

Really... of all the things to get angry about in the story, you're angry about a pregnancy that we know nothing about, and a woman's success at saving her life from a horrible culture? If that were a rape-baby, how do you think she, already feeling such considerable shame (especially in her culture, and especially at her very young age likely 12-14), would feel about it?

I'm not really the kind of person who calls a teenager's desperate attempt at saving their life (and, conversely, the life of their baby) "the worst", "worst then Hitler". You know... the 40ish year old bloke who killed millions of people on the basis of sexuality, race, and... i'm sure some other things? Yeah... I really don't see it.

And with how utterly marginalized women in that story, and that time in history, were? It's much more likely that it was Joseph's attempt to save his woman, and that Jesus's mother was only showing her support for him when he went on that book's version of Death Row. I mean... I'd have come to see my son or daughter being hung upon the torture device. It's support, whether that makes sense to you or not, I can't know.

A mother's top priority is? To take care of her child. Getting her child killed to cover up her "crimes" is not being a mother. Doesn't matter if it was wrong to punish adultery back then, she knew the law, she broke the law and that makes her a criminal. What tells you that our laws in 2013 are correct? Maybe our grand-children will laugh at our law in 2,100 and think it was barbaric! Doesn't suddenly mean that breaking the law now is not crime.

A mother can't do that to her child. Putting so much responsibility on him, getting him in trouble and getting him killed to cover up her crime, so she alone could benefit. It's disgusting. Would you like that, if your mother did that to you? Lie and say that a dope dealer is your father so she can get all the dope she wants for her own benefit? Exposing you to abuse, crime and getting you killed, for her benefit? Is that a mother? And then someone in 2,100 like you comes to argue, "imprisoning people for drug use was barbaric back then so it was righteous for the mother to get what she rightfully deserved". Would that be fair to you?

At least Hitler didn't kill his own son, so you can't say he was a bad father. He never got the chance to prove himself in this matter so we give him the benefit of the doubt. You can't use 2013 ethical logic to justify someone from 2,000 years ago. 2013 ethical logic justifies people from 2013. 2,000 years ago, there is NO justification for what I assume she did and if Joseph helped with the cover-up then he's a worst father in the world. I would have said, NO, I'm not jeopardizing my son so you can get away with this. This is MY son. What ball-less father would sacrifice his son to rescue his mother from her whoring?