Are Religious Images blessed? Christ portrait Miracle in Wakefield suggests it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LABTECH767

Now is it depiction for veneration or does it become an object of worship - a fine line indeed?

God: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19)

From my previous commentary:

1 John 5:21, NAB: “My little children, be on your guard against idols [“idols,” Dy, CC; “false gods,” JB].”

Idol, Idolatry

An idol is an image, a representation of anything, or a symbol that is an object of passionate devotion, whether material or imagined. Generally speaking, idolatry is the veneration, love, worship, or adoration of an idol [whereislogic: notice that that's an "or", not an "and", any one of those counts as idolatry]. It is usually practiced toward a real or supposed higher power, whether such power is believed to have animate existence (as a human, an animal, or an organization) or is inanimate (as a force or lifeless object of nature). Idolatry generally involves some form, ceremony, or ritual.
...
Not All Images Are Idols. God’s law not to form images (Ex 20:4, 5) did not rule out the making of all representations and statues. ...

Forms of Idolatry. ... Idols were venerated by partaking of food and drink in festivals or ceremonies in their honor (Ex 32:6; 1Co 8:10), by bowing and sacrificing to them, by song and dance before them, and even by a kiss. (Ex 32:8, 18, 19; 1Ki 19:18; Ho 13:2) Idolatry was also committed by arranging a table of food and drink for false gods (Isa 65:11), by making drink offerings, sacrificial cakes, and sacrificial smoke (Jer 7:18; 44:17), and by weeping in religious ceremony (Eze 8:14). ...

Then there are the more subtle forms of idolatry. Covetousness is idolatry (Col 3:5), since the object of an individual’s cravings diverts affection from the Creator and thus, in effect, becomes an idol. Instead of serving Jehovah God in faithfulness, a person can become a slave to his belly, that is, to fleshly desire or appetite, and make this his god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) Since love for the Creator is demonstrated by obedience (1Jo 5:3), rebellion and pushing ahead presumptuously are comparable to acts of idolatry.​—1Sa 15:22, 23.

Those looking to justify their idolatry say:

Which is rather 'ironic' if you're aware of the historical facts discussed in the link at the end of my last comment, if that's the word I'm looking for.

a reply to: whereislogic

You are pulling too much in your post that is Not Historically correct, distorting facts and creating a parallel fiction of History.

The use of the Cross as an imperial symbol in the battle of the Galias by Constantine the Great is a very well documented fact, No modern Protestant edition of a Biblical dictionary will change that.

It is not sensate to try to rewrite the History, the symbolism of the cross is linked with the apparition of Christianism since so early times.

Crosses are depicted profusely in the catacombs in Rome between the first and IV centuries.

Two symbols identified Christians in the early church, one was the cross, the other were the fishes, any serious archaeologist or Historian can confirm that.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: aniceday

You are extrapolating a subjective position and making it appear as a more general case, the fact that person was confused with antiidolatrist rhetoric used in some branches of protestantism does Not mean what you claim is truth.

You can be perfectly making up a lot what really you heard and who and why said so, as I have already told the majority of the Christians of the world use images in their worship.

Iconoclastism is an extremely old Heresy and was rejected by the father's of the early church either in the east and in the west during the first 8 centuries of our era.

If images would be bad there shouldn't be acheiroPoietas at all, nothing like the Veronika veil, the Shroud of Christ, The holy Mandylion and Keramylion or the Camuliana never had existed in History. Those are relics coming from the first century.

Orthodox, Coptics, Oriental, Anglican, Episcopalians, Catholic Christians all concur that use of Images is Not Idolatry , even Mormons think so.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: whereislogic

No body in his/her Sane mind that venerates or prays in front of an image thinks the artwork is God, that is quite an exaggeration.

We can Not mix to situations that occur in very different context without faulting gravely to the truth. Use of Idols in paganism has nothing to do with Christian Imagery.

Images is the way in general the human mind thinks, that is why Religion sometimes instead to refer to a written account uses images to illustrate what is teaching.

To say that religious images are idols is rough, misleading, insane, is like to suggest that when somebody wants to pray if uses the Bible is thinking the book itself is God.

If anybody thinks that the Bible is God that is also fundamentalist and insane by the way, the sacred scriptures are just instruments through which we can know what God has said in the past to men. The Bible was written by human hands as many icons were also painted too.

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Raggedyman

I would expect demons would cause "miracles" like statues crying, bleeding or moving but not healings of people

If Satan can afflict, then can Satan withdraw his affliction?

Why did Mosheh set a fiery serpent upon a pole? Was it not a an image to heal?

But then why was KIng Hezekiah righteous when he destroyed that fiery idol that Mosheh put upon a pole? Were not the Hebrews healed? If the Hebrews were healed then how can evil heal the righteous?

2Ki 18:1-6
(1) Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
(2) Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
(3) And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.
(4) He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Were both Moses and Hezakiah correct?

a reply to: Seede

Again, images themselves are Not idols, they don't have any pervertive power what so ever, as are also lacking it any artistic representations of reality or religious ideas or concepts ornating your place of living, working or praying.

Now, if one day you decide that those decorations that create a confortable, inviting or relaxing resting atmosphere are No longer part of the furniture, but a God or divinity the problem is in the person that think that.

The Bible does Not say don't make any art works or decorations what it is said there is Don't make anything with the specific purpose to be your God. There is people that read those warnings with extremely negative attitude so they misunderstand their real scope.

In analogous way a Bible is an object for study, but if you decide is God himself you are wrong, anybody can see is a book made through human means, it contains inspirational and spiritual messages or teachings is a very different concept.

Icons and the Bible itself can be used wrongly but the problem is Not in those objects but in who ever uses them in a different way for which they were made for.

Again we are talking about Icons, made with devotion and respect for Christ, his Holy Mother and Saints, this is nothing about representation of Demons, that is what Leviticus or Deuteronomy condemns.

Now, that a religious image or icon can be the instrument of a miracle of course it is possible and must Not scandalise us at all, is just a signal that God is pleased with that place of praising or wants to let us know something important in response to our prayers.

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: whereislogic

You are pulling too much in your post that is Not Historically correct, distorting facts and creating a parallel fiction of History.

Which part is incorrect? Can you quote something from what I quoted that you know for certain that it is incorrect? How can I tell other than taking your word for it?

Can you understand I would be somewhat suspicious of accepting things on the word of someone using the accountname "The angel of light" in light of the warning at 2 Cor.11:14?

Would it have helped if I hadn't skipped some historical context? Here it is ("early Christians" is referring to 1st Century Christians around Paul's time for example):

Let us first take a look at the origin of the cross. Is it a Christian symbol?

You may assume that Christians were the first to use the cross. The Encyclopedia Americana, however, speaks of “its ancient usage by both Hindus and Buddhists in India and China, and by the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.” Similarly, Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition) says that the cross “was an emblem to which religious and mystical meanings were attached long before the Christian era.”

Indeed, there is no evidence that early Christians used the cross in their worship. During the early days of Christianity, it was the pagan Romans who used the cross! Says The Companion Bible: “These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god . . . and are first seen on a coin of Julius Caesar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Caesar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C.” The Roman nature-god Bacchus was at times represented with a headband containing a number of crosses.

How, then, did the cross become the symbol of Christendom?

Constantine and the Cross:

In 312 C.E., Constantine, ruling the area now known as France and Britain, headed out to war against his brother-in-law, Maxentius, of Italy. En route he reportedly saw a vision​—a cross on which were the words “Hoc vince,” meaning, “By this conquer.” After his victory, Constantine made the cross the standard of his armies. When Christianity later became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the cross became the symbol of the church.

But did such a vision actually take place? Accounts of this legend are, at best, secondhand and full of discrepancies. Frankly, it would be difficult to find a more unlikely candidate for a divine revelation than Constantine. At the time of this supposed event, he was an avid sun-god worshiper. Constantine even dedicated Sunday as the day for sun worship. His conduct after his so-called conversion also gave little evidence of real dedication to right principles. Murder, intrigue, and political ambition ruled his life. It seems that for Constantine, Christianity was little more than a political device to unite a fragmented empire.

There is also little evidence that the type of cross Constantine “saw” really represented the instrument used to put Christ to death. Stamped on many coins Constantine subsequently had minted are X-shaped crosses with a “P” superimposed. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine, says: “As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word ‘Christ’ [in the Greek language] and had nothing to do with ‘the Cross,’” that is, as an instrument of execution. In fact, this style of cross is nearly identical to the pagan symbol for the sun.

See the rest of the comment you responded to.

The facts show that, rather than being the exclusive symbol of Christianity, the cross was in use centuries before the birth of Christ. This is admitted by The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908 edition, Vol. IV, page 517):

“The sign of the cross represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both the East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization.”

Showing the pagan religious origin of the cross, the book The Ancient Church by clergyman W. D. Killen says (1859 edition, page 316):

“From the most remote antiquity the cross was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honour by the Buddhists of the East; . . . about the commencement of our era, the pagans were wont to make the sign of a cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred mysteries.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives similar information about the widespread use of the cross. The Catholic Digest magazine, May, 1948, page 108, had the following to say on the subject of the cross: “Long before the birth of Christ the cross was a religious symbol. On the site of ancient Troy discs of baked clay stamped with a cross, were recently discovered. Two similar objects were found at Herculaneum. The Aztecs of ancient Mexico carved the cross on amulets, pottery, and temple walls. Many traces of use of the cross by North American Indians have been discovered. . . . Egyptian inscriptions often have the Tau (T) cross. They considered the scarab (beetle) sacred because markings down the back and across the thorax form a T.” See also The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 517; the footnote on pages 312, 313, of Gibbon’s History of Christianity, Eckler’s edition, 1891. Dr. Hislop, in The Two Babylons, likewise tells of the pagan origin of the cross and questions that Christ died on one.

But was not Jesus put to death on a two-beamed cross? The Bible indicates that he was not. At Acts 5:30 and Ac 10:39, in both Catholic and Protestant Bible translations, we are told that Jesus died on a “tree.” The word “tree” here translates the Greek word xylon (or xulon). Concerning this word and the word stauros, translated “cross” in some versions, The Companion Bible says on page 186 in the “Appendixes”:

“Homer [ancient Greek poet] uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon [or xylon, meaning a timber] in connection with the manner of our Lord’s death, . . . The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.”

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word staurosʹ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

More details in the video I linked at the end of that comment. Anyway, it is not normal to cherish and adore the instrument used to murder someone we love. Who would think of kissing the revolver that had been used to murder a loved one, or of wearing it around one’s neck?

a reply to: The angel of light
The monthly publication for the Roman Catholic clergy, The Ecclesiastical Review, of September, 1920, No. 3, of Baltimore, Maryland, page 275, says: “It may be safely asserted that only after the edict of Milan, A.D. 312, was the cross used as the permanent sign of our Redemption. De Rossi positively states that no monogram of Christ, discovered in the catacombs or other places, can be traced to a period anterior to the year 312. Even after that epoch-making year, the church, then free and triumphant, contented herself with having a simple monogram of Christ: the Greek letter chi vertically crossed by a rho, and horizontally sometimes, by an iota. [Artwork—Greek characters, see my earlier video with "historical details" for a picture of Constantine's Chi-Rho] The oldest crucifix mentioned as an object of public worship is the one venerated in the Church of Narbonne in southern France, as early as the 6th century.”

After showing the pagan origin of the cross, The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 7, of edition 11, page 506, says: “It was not till the time of Constantine that the cross was publicly used as the symbol of the Christian religion.” That was but logical, for Emperor Constantine was a worshiper of the pagan sun-god, whose symbol was a cross. Other experts have pointed out that “before the fourth century the cross was not used as a Christian emblem in the East any more than in the West”.

Before Constantine went to fight a battle near Rome at the Milvian Bridge in 312 C.E., he claimed that he was told in a dream to paint the “Christian” monogram​—the Greek letters khi and rho, the first two letters of Christ’s name in Greek—​on his soldiers’ shields. With this ‘sacred talisman,’ Constantine’s forces defeated his enemy Maxentius. Shortly after winning the battle, Constantine claimed that he had become a believer, although he was not baptized until just prior to his death some 24 years later. He went on to obtain the support of the professed Christians in his empire by “his adoption of the [Greek letters] Chi-Rho [Artwork​—Greek characters] as his emblem . . . The Chi-Rho had, however, already been used as a ligature [joining of letters] in both pagan and Christian contexts.”​—The Crucible of Christianity, edited by Arnold Toynbee (historian).

As a result, the foundation of Christendom was laid. As British broadcaster Malcolm Muggeridge wrote in his book The End of Christendom: “Christendom began with the Emperor Constantine.” However, he also made the perceptive comment: “You might even say that Christ himself abolished Christendom before it began by stating that his kingdom was not of this world​—one of the most far reaching and important of all his statements.” And one most widely ignored by Christendom’s religious and political rulers.​—John 18:36.

With Constantine’s support, Christendom’s religion became the official State religion of Rome. Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion, explains: “Christian bishops, once targets for arrest, torture, and execution, now received tax exemptions, gifts from the imperial treasury, prestige, and even influence at court; their churches gained new wealth, power, and prominence.” They had become friends of the emperor, friends of the Roman world.​—James 4:4.

James 4:4

Adulteresses,* [Or “You unfaithful ones.”] do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God.

Coming back to something I quoted in my previous comment:

Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

Except that that's not a cross anymore, so they are clearly using the word "cross" wrong in a misleading manner in spite of this clear acknowledgement that it wasn't a cross. Standard M.O (including 'hiding in plain sight', putting inconvenient details in the 'fineprint' such as an Encyclopedia that the layman won't study or tends to overlook and contradictory use of language).

1 Timothy 6:20,21

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” 21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.

May the undeserved kindness be with you.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: The angel of light
Your understanding of Baptists, dabbing away at Calvinism and Zwinglis infant baptism indicates you have no theological training at all You might want to better educate yourself in Christianity As has been suggested, would the portrait butn if set on fire buy its owner

An interesting conversation to say the least.

Is it possible that the Satan could deceive people with what appears to be miracles? If a person that believed not a whim of the God of Jesus would deceive others by the power of laying hands upon the sick and the sick recovering, could not Satan afflict the sickness and withdraw the sickness to credit the deceiver?

In this event, could this be possible [to influence Christians] in that Satan could have influenced the fire and protected the portrait to accredit a false miracle? From religious studies it seems that Satan, not able to create, is able to deceive quite effectively.

Jesus didnt come to deal with politics or things, Jesus came for individuals

Question: "What does it mean that a house divided cannot stand?"

Answer: There are three accounts in the Gospels in which Jesus states that a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste or a house divided cannot stand (Luke 11:17; Mark 3:25; Matthew 12:25). All three instances of this statement are spoken in response to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Satan—a blasphemy that Jesus said would not be forgiven them.
www.gotquestions.org...

Catholics are very political, Jesus wasnt
Catholics are into idols, Jesus wasnt


I would expect demons would cause "miracles" like statues crying, bleeding or moving but not healings of people

You'd think so but according to some Jewish kabbalah sources, those that egoistically seek creative and/or destructive powers (both black and white magicians) can traverse the tree of life by its side columns. Whereas those that seek to unite with God, traverse the tree of life by its central column. So miracles in themselves (healing's etc) is not a sign that a person is one with God.

a reply to: whereislogic

Typical legalistic JW.org member, babble on about the cross but ignore all the paedophiles that your church protects

Cross a stake, firing squad or an electric chair only members of JW.org get get so hung up on the implement of Christs death, not the actual sacrifice itself
The only reason is so you can argue about irrelevant semantics and big note yourselves and theologically intelectual when the reality is you don't know how to think for yourselves

You are so lost in your JW.org gnosticism and it's secret teachings
Who cares about the cross, it's all about Jesus, you are just a parrot without your own mind arguing with people who don't know any better

Seriously, does it matter if Jesus died on a cross or a stake, seriously answer my question

a reply to: The angel of light

The Bible does Not say don't make any art works or decorations what it is said there is Don't make anything with the specific purpose to be your God. There is people that read those warnings with extremely negative attitude so they misunderstand their real scope. In analogous way a Bible is an object for study, but if you decide is God himself you are wrong, anybody can see is a book made through human means, it contains inspirational and spiritual messages or teachings is a very different concept. Icons and the Bible itself can be used wrongly but the problem is Not in those objects but in who ever uses them in a different way for which they were made for. Again we are talking about Icons, made with devotion and respect for Christ, his Holy Mother and Saints, this is nothing about representation of Demons, that is what Leviticus or Deuteronomy condemns. Now, that a religious image or icon can be the instrument of a miracle of course it is possible and must Not scandalise us at all, is just a signal that God is pleased with that place of praising or wants to let us know something important in response to our prayers.

I do understand your perspective but do no agree with your interpretation or understanding. In the Orthodox Hebrew understanding we must use both the oral and written perspectives as one. I am taught to not denigrate the Torah in that it Is nothing but men's books of men's understanding. Torah is not the Tanakh as so many are confused to believe. Oral Torah is not complete with out written Torah and written Torah is not complete without oral Torah. Both were given in the Sinai convention and both must agree as to the complete thought. If one who is within the covenant of Moses does as you have described, knowingly, then then that one who does this, knowingly, does commit idolatry.

In oral Torah it is forbidden to keep any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth in your possessions of house or worship. They shall not be in your possession nor visited. One who creates a forbidden image is as guilty as one who uses that image. Both are idolaters according to Torah.

No argument is intended on my part but only that you understand the Hebrew perspective also. This can differ according to the sect of Judaism because the divisions of Judaism are very wide spread in the interpretation of Torah. Torah is not regarded as [a book made through human means] to the prophets and apostles of Christ Jesus.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Proverbs 6:12,14-16,19

12 A useless and wicked man walks about with crooked speech;
...
14 With a perverted heart,

He is always scheming evil and spreading contentions.

15 Therefore, his disaster will come suddenly;

In a moment he will be broken beyond healing.

16 There are six things that Jehovah hates;

Yes, seven things that he* [Or “his soul.”] detests:
...
19 A false witness who lies with every breath,

And anyone sowing contentions among brothers.

Proverbs 16:28

28 A troublemaker* [Or “A schemer.”] causes dissension,

And a slanderer separates close friends.

Romans 2:5-8

5 But according to your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God’s righteous judgment. 6 And he will pay back to each one according to his works: 7 everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibleness by endurance in work that is good; 8 however, for those who are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and anger.

Romans 16:17

17 Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.

2 Timothy 2:23

23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.

James 3:5,6a,8, 13-16

5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze! 6 The tongue is also a fire. ...
8 But no human can tame the tongue. It is unruly and injurious, full of deadly poison.
...
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him by his fine conduct demonstrate works performed with a mildness that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness* [Or possibly, “selfish ambition.”] in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic. 16 For wherever there are jealousy and contentiousness,* there will also be disorder and every vile thing.

Now in my country, we actually have a word for someone who has a tendency to speak poison in this form: slander, gossip, lies, spreading contentions, sowing contentions, crooked speech, bitter speech, fierce speech, injurious speech (or “inventors of injurious things”, Ro 1:30), foolish and ignorant questionings full of malice, speech or questionings that are designed to kindle hatred, malice, contentions and strife or demonstrates hatred, envy, contentiousness, bitterness, stubborness, malice, deception, etc.; also designed to "produce fights" or to kindle fights, get them started "because it overturns those listening" (2 Tim 2:14), which is useful for the one encouraging people to behave more "earthly, animalistic, demonic" and thereby becoming their spiritual father the more they start to behave in this manner. The word is also sometimes used for a "hothead" (allthough more often with a slight alteration), coming back to this notion of the tongue being a "fire" that James was talking about:

gifkikker = poison frog (or in English it would be a poison dart frog I guess)
driftkikker = hothead (literally rage-frog, or frenzy-frog)

Hey, at least you're being honest or are having good self-awareness in your profile picture if that is what I think it is (I'm not that good at spotting frog types). The bible uses frogs coming out of a mouth as a symbol for unclean expressions as well. Revelation 16:13:

And I saw three unclean inspired expressions* [Lit., “unclean spirits.”] that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

So thanks for another demonstration of the reliability of the bible I guess? Perhaps it'll wake someone up to that, who knows. One can always hope.

The word "strife" is also related to "contentiousness". Romans 1:28-32:

28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,* [Or “they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge.”] God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed,* [Or “covetousness.”] and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers,* [Or “gossipers.”] 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful,* [Or “inventors of injurious things.”] disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

Strife: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2

Wrangling, quarreling, contending with another because of enmity. One Hebrew verb rendered “engage in strife” is also rendered “stir up” and “excite oneself.” Among the causes for strife alluded to in the Scriptures are hatred (Pr 10:12), rage (Pr 15:18; 29:22), intrigues (Pr 16:28), ridicule (Pr 22:10), heavy drinking (Pr 23:29, 30), slander (Pr 26:20), arrogance or pride, and lack of right teaching (Pr 28:25; 1Ti 6:3, 4). Strife destroys peace and happiness. Its unpleasant and repelling effect on other persons is repeatedly highlighted in the book of Proverbs. (Pr 19:13; 21:9, 19; 25:24; 27:15) ...

As one of the works of the flesh that is hated by Jehovah (Ga 5:19, 20; compare Pr 6:19; Ro 1:28, 29, 32; Jas 3:14-16), strife or contention has no place in the Christian congregation. (Ro 13:13; 1Co 3:3; 2Co 12:20; Php 2:3; Tit 3:9) One of the qualifications for a Christian overseer is that he be a nonbelligerent man. (1Ti 3:1, 3) Therefore, persons persisting in contention or strife are among those to receive God’s adverse judgment.​—Ro 2:6, 8.

"intrigues (Pr 16:28)" is an interesting cause to study (it relates to the topic of lies, slander and gossip, cause these things spread the fastest when they intrigue people). I already quoted Pr 16:28 before.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman

Proverbs 6:12,14-16,19

12 A useless and wicked man walks about with crooked speech;
...
14 With a perverted heart,

He is always scheming evil and spreading contentions.

15 Therefore, his disaster will come suddenly;

In a moment he will be broken beyond healing.

16 There are six things that Jehovah hates;

Yes, seven things that he* [Or “his soul.”] detests:
...
19 A false witness who lies with every breath,

And anyone sowing contentions among brothers.

Proverbs 16:28

28 A troublemaker* [Or “A schemer.”] causes dissension,

And a slanderer separates close friends.

Romans 2:5-8

5 But according to your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God’s righteous judgment. 6 And he will pay back to each one according to his works: 7 everlasting life to those who are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibleness by endurance in work that is good; 8 however, for those who are contentious and who disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and anger.

Romans 16:17

17 Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.

2 Timothy 2:23

23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.

James 3:5,6a,8, 13-16

5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze! 6 The tongue is also a fire. ...
8 But no human can tame the tongue. It is unruly and injurious, full of deadly poison.
...
13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him by his fine conduct demonstrate works performed with a mildness that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness* [Or possibly, “selfish ambition.”] in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic. 16 For wherever there are jealousy and contentiousness,* there will also be disorder and every vile thing.

Now in my country, we actually have a word for someone who has a tendency to speak poison in this form: slander, gossip, lies, spreading contentions, sowing contentions, crooked speech, bitter speech, fierce speech, injurious speech (or “inventors of injurious things”, Ro 1:30), foolish and ignorant questionings full of malice, speech or questionings that are designed to kindle hatred, malice, contentions and strife or demonstrates hatred, envy, contentiousness, bitterness, stubborness, malice, deception, etc.; also designed to "produce fights" or to kindle fights, get them started "because it overturns those listening" (2 Tim 2:14), which is useful for the one encouraging people to behave more "earthly, animalistic, demonic" and thereby becoming their spiritual father the more they start to behave in this manner. The word is also sometimes used for a "hothead" (allthough more often with a slight alteration), coming back to this notion of the tongue being a "fire" that James was talking about:

gifkikker = poison frog (or in English it would be a poison dart frog I guess)
driftkikker = hothead (literally rage-frog, or frenzy-frog)

Hey, at least you're being honest or are having good self-awareness in your profile picture if that is what I think it is (I'm not that good at spotting frog types). The bible uses frogs coming out of a mouth as a symbol for unclean expressions as well. Revelation 16:13:

And I saw three unclean inspired expressions* [Lit., “unclean spirits.”] that looked like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the wild beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

So thanks for another demonstration of the reliability of the bible I guess? Perhaps it'll wake someone up to that, who knows. One can always hope.

The word "strife" is also related to "contentiousness". Romans 1:28-32:

28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,* [Or “they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge.”] God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed,* [Or “covetousness.”] and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers,* [Or “gossipers.”] 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful,* [Or “inventors of injurious things.”] disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

Strife: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2

Wrangling, quarreling, contending with another because of enmity. One Hebrew verb rendered “engage in strife” is also rendered “stir up” and “excite oneself.” Among the causes for strife alluded to in the Scriptures are hatred (Pr 10:12), rage (Pr 15:18; 29:22), intrigues (Pr 16:28), ridicule (Pr 22:10), heavy drinking (Pr 23:29, 30), slander (Pr 26:20), arrogance or pride, and lack of right teaching (Pr 28:25; 1Ti 6:3, 4). Strife destroys peace and happiness. Its unpleasant and repelling effect on other persons is repeatedly highlighted in the book of Proverbs. (Pr 19:13; 21:9, 19; 25:24; 27:15) ...

As one of the works of the flesh that is hated by Jehovah (Ga 5:19, 20; compare Pr 6:19; Ro 1:28, 29, 32; Jas 3:14-16), strife or contention has no place in the Christian congregation. (Ro 13:13; 1Co 3:3; 2Co 12:20; Php 2:3; Tit 3:9) One of the qualifications for a Christian overseer is that he be a nonbelligerent man. (1Ti 3:1, 3) Therefore, persons persisting in contention or strife are among those to receive God’s adverse judgment.​—Ro 2:6, 8.

Right back at you buddy
I am a mirror and it reflected back at you

Child

a reply to: Raggedyman

So rid yourselves of all badness and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all backbiting. 2 As newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated* [Or “pure.”] milk of the word, so that by means of it you may grow to salvation, 3 provided you have tasted* [Or “experienced.”] that the Lord is kind. (1 Peter 2:1-3)



Backbiting: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1

This is a rendering of the Greek term ka·ta·la·li·aʹ. The related verb ka·ta·la·leʹo literally means “speak against,” doing so without justification and usually in a malicious or hostile manner. (1Pe 2:12; 3:16)

Earlier concerning the concept of "strife" I also quoted:

Wrangling, quarreling, contending with another because of enmity. One Hebrew verb rendered “engage in strife” is also rendered “stir up” and “excite oneself.”

Bringing up certain topics and certain types of "questionings" is an efficient and cunning way to stir up the emotions (in particular hatred, fierceness), including in "those listening" as it also "overturns those listening" (and works against developing a merciful spirit, mildness and a calm mind and heart; it stirs up or excites those after all, it makes one more merciless, fierce and contentious). To calm the mind and heart again, these beneficial teachings might be of help:

a reply to: whereislogic

I am rubber you are glue bounce of me and stick to you

Your organisation protects paedophiles, give them a safe place, looks after them
Adults who have destroyed children's whole lives

Don't preach your hypocrisy at me, you silly silly victim of a sickening cult

JW.org the paedophile cult

a reply to: whereislogic

Am I lying when I say your cult protects paedophiles

Answer that or don't

If you don't answer then you are the liar, lying by not answering, hiding the truth
I would ask you to be honest, that won't happen will it