6 ms·

She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. 21 And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young g

She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. 21 And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young girl in Egypt, when you first allowed your breasts to be fondled. Ezekiel 23:20

frenchy 7mo ago
I find it funny and sad that this is the sort of thing that people like to bring up as somehow bad and not the part where the Isrealites are admonished for not genociding the Cannanites hard enough.
jajuuka 7mo ago
Yeah, kids need to read this. Totally. /s
- jjmarr 7mo ago
  In Biblical times, yeah? There was no such thing as birth control. If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over.
  - feature20260213 7mo ago
    The irony is this is an allegory for two cities who "committed adultery" against the covenant relationship with God by becoming bedfellows with pagan authorities in a "lust" for power. This isn't actually about sex just very strong poetic allegory to raise awareness.
  - einpoklum 7mo ago
    > If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over. Not really. And biblical times does not mean people's lives were run according to commandments in the Jewish bible (neither in ancient Judea nor elsewhere).
  - jajuuka 7mo ago
    The act of abortion has existed since 1000 BCE with the earliest being 1550 BCE. Around the estimated time of the mythical Moses. Obviously not as effective, but the practice existed. Not to mention sex isn't one specific act. There are many ways to have sex, even by biblical standards, that do not involve the possibility of getting pregnant.
    - Cytobit 7mo ago
      You do know that 1550 bce is before 1000 bce, right?
      - jajuuka 7mo ago
        I do. I said it's existed since 1000 bce with the earliest case being 1550 bce. As in the earliest record is 1550 bce but the practice being more common by 1000 bce. Did you misread what I wrote or am I missing something?
  - nwallin 7mo ago
    That's not true. The Bible provides a recourse for unwanted pregnancies in the form of a procedure to perform an abortion. Which is another reason the Bible should be banned from being accessed by minors. If a child needs an abortion, they should consult a medical professional. They should not read about how to perform an abortion in an app on their phone and attempt to perform the procedure themselves.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
caaqil 7mo ago
Setting aside the context of this quoted verse and how NSFW stuff is judged in religious texts, this doesn't address the more important point that OP raised: the visuals of this verse and more extreme ones can be easily found on Reddit and similar allowed apps. So OP's points stands.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  The other apps are clients. The apps themselves don't actually contain any content, they're just code. An app that itself contains an offline copy of a book with NSFW text is not the same thing. Meanwhile Reddit is a doubly poor example because even though the service contains NSFW content, it marks it as such, and then the client not only doesn't itself contain it but gives the user a separate opportunity to select against it when using the app to download pages.
  - bentley 7mo ago
    Bible apps often don’t contain the text directly, but allow the user to download a preferred translation on initial startup. That didn’t prevent them from being marked NSFW. And clearly that wasn’t the standard anyway. Before the introduction of the policy restricting religious texts, the only apps F-Droid had marked NSFW were frontends to porn sites, even though the apps presumably contained no sexual content directly.
    - array_key_first 7mo ago
      I would still say that counts as the app providing the content, not users. It's not user uploaded, it's app uploaded.
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      It should be pretty obvious why porn apps are marked NSFW despite not containing any content. Substantially all of the content they can be used to access is NSFW, whereas it's reasonably possible to access only SFW content on Reddit. Which would also explain the Bible apps without an initial copy. Choosing which translation to download when substantially all of them are translations of the same NSFW text means that substantially all of the users would end up with NSFW content on their device by using the app.

frenchy 7mo ago

I find it funny and sad that this is the sort of thing that people like to bring up as somehow bad and not the part where the Isrealites are admonished for not genociding the Cannanites hard enough.

jajuuka 7mo ago

Yeah, kids need to read this. Totally. /s

jjmarr 7mo ago
In Biblical times, yeah? There was no such thing as birth control. If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over.
- feature20260213 7mo ago
  The irony is this is an allegory for two cities who "committed adultery" against the covenant relationship with God by becoming bedfellows with pagan authorities in a "lust" for power. This isn't actually about sex just very strong poetic allegory to raise awareness.
- einpoklum 7mo ago
  > If you get pregnant and are unmarried, your life might as well get over. Not really. And biblical times does not mean people's lives were run according to commandments in the Jewish bible (neither in ancient Judea nor elsewhere).
- jajuuka 7mo ago
  The act of abortion has existed since 1000 BCE with the earliest being 1550 BCE. Around the estimated time of the mythical Moses. Obviously not as effective, but the practice existed. Not to mention sex isn't one specific act. There are many ways to have sex, even by biblical standards, that do not involve the possibility of getting pregnant.
  - Cytobit 7mo ago
    You do know that 1550 bce is before 1000 bce, right?
    - jajuuka 7mo ago
      I do. I said it's existed since 1000 bce with the earliest case being 1550 bce. As in the earliest record is 1550 bce but the practice being more common by 1000 bce. Did you misread what I wrote or am I missing something?
- nwallin 7mo ago
  That's not true. The Bible provides a recourse for unwanted pregnancies in the form of a procedure to perform an abortion. Which is another reason the Bible should be banned from being accessed by minors. If a child needs an abortion, they should consult a medical professional. They should not read about how to perform an abortion in an app on their phone and attempt to perform the procedure themselves.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

caaqil 7mo ago

Setting aside the context of this quoted verse and how NSFW stuff is judged in religious texts, this doesn't address the more important point that OP raised: the visuals of this verse and more extreme ones can be easily found on Reddit and similar allowed apps. So OP's points stands.

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
The other apps are clients. The apps themselves don't actually contain any content, they're just code. An app that itself contains an offline copy of a book with NSFW text is not the same thing. Meanwhile Reddit is a doubly poor example because even though the service contains NSFW content, it marks it as such, and then the client not only doesn't itself contain it but gives the user a separate opportunity to select against it when using the app to download pages.
- bentley 7mo ago
  Bible apps often don’t contain the text directly, but allow the user to download a preferred translation on initial startup. That didn’t prevent them from being marked NSFW. And clearly that wasn’t the standard anyway. Before the introduction of the policy restricting religious texts, the only apps F-Droid had marked NSFW were frontends to porn sites, even though the apps presumably contained no sexual content directly.
  - array_key_first 7mo ago
    I would still say that counts as the app providing the content, not users. It's not user uploaded, it's app uploaded.
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    It should be pretty obvious why porn apps are marked NSFW despite not containing any content. Substantially all of the content they can be used to access is NSFW, whereas it's reasonably possible to access only SFW content on Reddit. Which would also explain the Bible apps without an initial copy. Choosing which translation to download when substantially all of them are translations of the same NSFW text means that substantially all of the users would end up with NSFW content on their device by using the app.