Man On Internet Misquotes Bible On The Subject Of Porn. by Jimbee68 posted Sep 2, 2024 at 2:58 PM You know, I found this recently on the internet. And it got me to thinking. Some people have misconceptions. About what the Bible says about sex practices. About what sex practices they even had back then. So let me clarify some misconceptions. Pornography didn't exist in the ancient world. They had dirty pictures, in the pyramids and in brothels, but the Bible doesn't see that as important, or at least separate, from the original sin. And homosexuality? They had no such concept back in ancient times. No one then did. Not the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. They had homosexual acts. But those were acts, not a mental state or orientation. If you talked about being gay back then, they'd have no idea what you meant. Because the term "homosexual" didn't exist till the 1890's (despite the fact some Christians now claim there is a word in the Bible that translates that way). Now, Ezekiel 16:17 does say "Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them" which does mean dildos. They did exist in the ancient world, dildos. And they were punishable by death as the above passage says. And unlike Texas, you only had to possess just one to be stoned to death, not six.
I wish more people would exhibit enthusiasm for a spiritual interpretation of the environment and landscape of this subject. It comes to your house without any censorship! We are so vocal about other things, but mum on this. When you order cable, do you by default get adult mature oriented content? No! You have to buy that channel and it's an extra effort to get it if that's what you want. You get to decide, and the default cable package doesn't include it, or they didn't used to. By now those channels aren't relevant. With as many faith-minded people and groups to exhibit their interest in faith or scripture or observance or prayer, I am totally taken aback that there isn't more interest in placing a legislative initiative that would enable the service provider to offer an option at the outset of internet or cellular internet access contracts. This should be a legal requirement and it isn't.
I am dying to know what the actual intention is in allowing this to continue. Can back off when it's by default still broadcasting through to anyone and each and every subscriber from multiple sources available on desktops and cell phones alike! But I'm chided if my sneakers tempt someone to a relaxed attitude about illicit substances since I'm older. It's an obedience test? It's a contest of some kind? Why don't they just subsidize beer?! What are the stakes?
I belive that the Venus of Wiliendorf has pornographic aspects. The figurine is Thirty Thousand years old.
