to be feeling rather narked about the Christmas story this year?

[HarktheheraldAnglepoise]

With DD's birth still fresh in my mind, I'm finding myself a bit fixated with the whole giving birth in a stable bit that usually gets blithely skimmed over. It was bad enough in hospital, and at least there I got to have a bath afterwards. Are we sure that it wasn't Mary doing all the lowing, not the cattle? If the little lord Jesus no crying he makes, does that mean the son of God scored piss-poorly on his APGAR? AIBU to think that if God was going to knock up poor Mary without her knowledge or consent, he could at least use his omniscience to give her a pleasant labour experience? Am I? Am I? Hmm?

i think that the fact that he didn't cry showed that he truly was the son of god.

i thought it might have been a bit bothersome to have a bunch of shepherds turn up so shortly afterwards. Poor woman probably wanted a rest and a cup of tea, but no, there they were handing over livestock.

Quite! You just want your DH and your mum and that's about it, not a pack of strangers turning up and wanting to chat.

At least she didn't have to bother with the birth announcement I suppose.

In the Reluctant Worshippers thread, Revjustabout compared the Christian story of the nativity with how it's written in the Qu'ran. Tell you what, the Christian Mary gets off lightly !

DS is very upset by the Christmas story as he starts crying that the baby shouldn't be in a stable, it's for the cows and horses. Bless him, he's 2 and a half