You can insist on being confused if you wish, but the term "religious tradition" instead of "religion" or "faith tradition" or "belief structure" is just a multitude of ways of saying pretty much the same thing.
But the key is the bottom line - what say you of the Christ? Who do you say He is?
I believe the stories to be mythical. Every Bible scholar knows they weren't written down for at least a generation after the events were supposed to have happened. There's a lot of time there, for a deeply persecuted people to have figured out fanciful tales to get them through tough times. Even then, most of the stories were banned a few hundred years later, and only the "approved" ones weren't destroyed to the fullest extent possible.
I've had an interesting time on this topic, I hadn't meant to get into semantic battles with believers, but when any topic touches on either religion or sexuality (and this one hits both), it's inevitable. If this particular young woman had dealt with her promiscuity by donning the burka and becoming a Muslim, she'd be roundly criticized. Same result, different method. I guess everybody's looking for validation of their own positions, in the behavior of others.
I didn't say I was confused, and I am not. This was not a disagreement over semantics. Your position on this and, particularly, the broader implications that underpin this discussion are logically untenable. So it is with moral relativism. But as I said, you are free to believe what you wish and you seem determined. Again, I wish you well.