Abrahamic religious texts, and a lot of others as well, are offensive. They clearly and directly glorify oppressive and/or genocidal violence in the past. There's a very strong argument that they demand similar violence in the present and future. They definitely demand a whole bunch of evil and oppressive social institutions. They're more offensive than hardcore porn. Any "believers" who claim they don't really mean what they say should get exactly as much consideration as people who claim hardcore porn doesn't really mean the sex.
It's just that F-Droid shouldn't be in the business of caring what's "NSFW".
No they are not. Not unless you are intentionally taking in super weird definition of "offensive" or "hardcore porn". And I am saying that as someone who is not Christian and finds a lot of what Christianity stands for off-putting or even unethical. There is a reason people who want quick individual fun go for porn and not for a bible.
It's all about interpretation, which is the point where you mark something as not appropriate for children so that parents can actively make the choice on if their kids should be exposed to it. In this case there's very little argument about whether we want more people following the voice in their head to kill their son, which is from the bible, or having vanilla sex, which is the definition of hardcore porn (as opposed to softcore porn, not hardcore as in extreme at least that was the definition I'm used to perhaps the meaning has drifted).
People are comfortable with religious texts because they are bought up with them and know which pieces to ignore, just look at the moral panic around teenagers getting hold of a Qaran and going off to join ISIS after 9/11. Hell I find the prevalence and acceptance of genital mutilation encouraged by religious texts horrendous when I spend time considering it.
It's not a hardship to let parents decide whether kids should have access to this stuff. That being said what the tag does in context of the f-droid shop is not really helpful behavior. It's not what most people would expect for parental control and outside of countries where the texts may be proscribed it's not really helpful behavior to hide these apps.
I always viewed it as It's more that it's distinct from softcore porn which if you look up is more nudity and maybe simulated sex acts vs actual explicit sex acts which was accepted as hardcore porn no matter how vanilla. I'm happy to concede the meaning may have drifted as access to explicit porn became more widespreasd and softcore porn lost cultural relevance but even in that case I expect a large chunk of parents would be happier with their kids thinking rough sex is fine rather than thinking self circumcision with a rock or following voices that tell them to kill is ok.
>A thing that appears in book and stories for kids
Sure but does it appear as a moral good thing to do? If it does is it because the voice in the head is telling them to kill evil doers rather than innocents? You can see why you'd want to have a discussion with your kids about it just like you'd hopefully have a discussion about what they may see in porn not being real/healthy for most relationships. This is obviously at age appropriate times, there's a good reason kids aren't being told about Sodom and Gomorrah in all it's detail in kindergarten, why cartoons of the story of the Ark don't focus on the babies drowning as mothers struggle to swim holding them above their heads before succumbing to exhaustion or the cold... only to continue to exist forever in eternal torment.
> Which is super weird definition of hardcore porn.
As far as I know, the definition of "hardcore porn" is and always has been explicit depiction of actual sexual activity (on edit: in a way intended to be sexually arousing to the reader/viewer). In pictures, that generally comes out to genitalia being shown in contact with genitalia or other body parts.
And that's how you do vanilla sex.
What is your super weird definition?
> No, a vanilla sex appearing in a book does not make it hard porn book.
"... and then they had sex" wouldn't. A relatively clinical or relatively expurgated sentence or two wouldn't.
> A thing that appears in book and stories for kids.
What particular book or story do you have in mind here, and exactly what does it say, and how does it present it? Because the Bible presents it as praiseworthy to be prepared to kill your son if you hear God tell you to do it, and gives what it claims is an actual, factual, historical example.
To be really fair - semitic politheism had a thing for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch . This can be seen as opposition (a weak one) or whitewashed remnant of endorsement.
I'm not sure that this label works though - I get the F-Droid is doing it because of regulatory push but it seems to me that simply notion of "safe internet" or "safe app-store" is fundamentally misguided (we didn't made TV safe - just gave ranking and let parents decide)- and I can see that someone with modern sensibilities looking at older or god-forbid "ancient" literature will have to mark huge swaths of it as not safe.
I think that most of this rage should instead be directed toward this regulatory nonsense instead of F-droid though.
This does illustrate ironical thing - and what christian puritans forget - bible will not OK for atheistic/modern puritans.
Abrahamic religious texts, and a lot of others as well, are offensive. They clearly and directly glorify oppressive and/or genocidal violence in the past. There's a very strong argument that they demand similar violence in the present and future. They definitely demand a whole bunch of evil and oppressive social institutions. They're more offensive than hardcore porn. Any "believers" who claim they don't really mean what they say should get exactly as much consideration as people who claim hardcore porn doesn't really mean the sex.
It's just that F-Droid shouldn't be in the business of caring what's "NSFW".