Isn't it obvious that Mary was a victim of rape?

Of course she was, but Christians insist there was no sex involved. Lol

No. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary could have been betrothed at about 12, however, there is no direct evidence of Mary's age at betrothal or in pregnancy. The term "betrothal" is an awkward translation of kiddushin; according to the Jewish law those called "betrothed" were actually husband and wife. The gospels of Matthew and Luke in the New Testament describe Mary as a virgin, and Christians believe that she conceived her son while a virgin by the Holy Spirit. This took place when she was already betrothed to Joseph and was awaiting the concluding rite of marriage, the formal home-taking ceremony. Writers or speakers typically use allegories as literary devices or as rhetorical devices that convey hidden meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, and/or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey.

Interestingly the 'Virgin Birth' narrative does not appear in the earliest of the gospels (Mark) and really may be partially a response to the environment in which the young church found itself, that is to say the world of the first and early second century Mediterranean in which goddess fertility cults predominated. The 'Marian' bias of the early church (something which endured in the Roman church, right down to the present in fact) led to what could be considered as an unfortunate 'anti-sex' bias, which persists in a celibate clergy (introduced much later) and a stress upon the conception of Jesus in a clinical, spiritual way without the aid of bodily fluids. To what extend the birth narratives were inflated to key into what were believed to be 'foretellings' in the Prophets is open to question. (Thomas Paine in 'Common Sense' dissects the one known as "Behold a virgin shall conceive etc, pointing out that it had reference to a particular situation in specific part of Israel's history, rather than foretelling the birth of a Messiah!). Like so much in the Bible, an over literal reading does produce apparent discords and contradictions. Really, it comes down to the question of whether you are twisting a particular portion of scripture to support a high or low Christology.

No, that is not immediately obvious. Allow me to explain.

The first reference to the Virgin Birth was (at the earliest) 70 CE, more than 40 years after the crucifixion. It is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but it is absent from the earliest gospel (Mark), as well as the writings of Paul (which pre-date the gospels by several decades), the remaining books of the New Testament, and the Gospel of John.

So, assuming that the virgin birth was not a miraculous event, the most likely explanation is that Matthew and Luke are referencing a tradition that was invented in order to fit a prophetic requirement.

And if we accept that the virgin birth was a miraculous event, then there is nothing stopping us from assuming that a fertilized egg just appeared in her uterus sans sexual contact. Or, if that's too much for you, it is hypothetically possible (but highly unlikely) that a genetic hermaphrodite could conceive without sexual contact.

It is certainly clear to millions that you have never learned the true facts about the miraculous conception and birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. See how God feels about ridiculers. Proverbs 1:22 "How long will you inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and how long must you ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and how long will you stupid ones keep hating knowledge? (23) Turn back at my reproof. Then to you I will cause my spirit to bubble forth; I will make my words known to you. (24-26) Because I have called out but you keep refusing, I have stretched out my hand but there is no one paying attention, and you keep neglecting all my counsel, and my reproof you have not accepted, I also, for my part, shall laugh at your own disaster, I shall mock when what you dread comes,..." The way we listen to God's reproof is through the pages of the Bible. Are you willing to do that? If so, you can go to the international website, jw.org and Bible Teachings > Bible Questions Answered. It is never a good thing to ridicule and mock the Sovereign Lord of the universe whose name is Jehovah. Whatever bad things we do always comes back on us with a vengeance. I have seen this to be so many many times. Our God, Jehovah is so full of love that when someone repents and wants to "come to know" him even the angels rejoice. John 17:3 and Luke 15:7 "I tell you that thus there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance." Why not see for yourself why over 9,500,000 from more than 236 countries are studying the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. Go to the site and look under About Us > Activities, About Us > Conventions, About Us > Frequently Asked Questions and see the video Why Study the Bible. If you like what you learn, you can request your FREE personal Bible study, even at a time and place convenient for you.

Nope. As if she was, then she would have been killed.

That she was not is evidence enough that the courts and people were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

You forget, God came to her and asked for her permission to carry Jesus, and the HOLY SPIRIT DID THE DEED, not God himself. Dude. Read the Bible.

Not if you can read plain English on at least a 5th grade level.

Hi Hitler lover!

Mary had a good vag, can you really blame God?