I was inspired to this topic by today's blog discussion.
Jest znaczna część ludzi, zwłaszcza w zborach, zwłaszcza na “stanowiskach”, pastorzy, starsi, twierdząca, jakoby chrześcijanin nowo narodzony nie powinien się interesować polityką.
In my opinion, this is another lie of Satan, and people who speak out like this are listening to the whispers of the evil one.
He is already arguing his position.
The Bible says:
” Całe Pismo przez Boga jest natchnione i pożyteczne do nauki, do wykrywania błędów, do poprawy, do wychowywania w sprawiedliwości,” 2 Tym 3
Speaking to parenting in justice, I think everyone will agree with me that politics affects parenting.
Lena from Ireland wrote today like this:
“Mój wykładowca jest homoseksualistą i mówię wam,nie da rady momentami go słuchać.
The screw somehow gets loose on him and during the lecture he starts telling things from his private life.
She's being awfully obvious about her relationship with the guy.
She emphasizes that they are a normal family and are raising their children.
He wants to tell everyone that his choice is normal but people are intolerant.
It is very trendy now to advocate that what is sick, filthy and disgusting is supposed to be good.And it is increasingly accepted by the world.
The laws and statutes change so that we can't say anything.
Wszystko odwraca się do góry nogami i jeszcze chwila a będziemy siedzieć w więzieniach za to,że nazywamy rzeczy po imieniu.”
They use their social standing through politics, and can't a Christian demonstrate his disapproval of politicians making ungodly laws?
“Biada prawodawcom ustaw bezbożnych
and those who have legislated harm,
2 to drive the weak away from justice
...and put the poor of my people out of law;
to make widows their prey
i by móc ograbiać sieroty!” Iz 10
Christians who believe that politics should not be in the realm of believers are sterile and deluded Christians. They are religious beauties.
How do I know which law is ungodly without knowing the law? Non sense.
In John 16 we have it written:
“Mamci wam jeszcze wiele mówić, ale teraz znieść nie możecie. 13 Lecz gdy przyjdzie on The Spirit of truth, will bring you into all truth; bo nie sam od siebie mówić będzie, ale cokolwiek usłyszy, mówić będzie, i przyszłe rzeczy wam opowie. 14 On mię uwielbi; bo z mego weźmie, a opowie wam. 15 Wszystko, co ma Ojciec, moje jest; dlategom rzekł: Że z mego weźmie, a wam opowie.’
"Duch prawdy, wprowadzi was we wszelką prawdę’.
It is not written in the truth of salvation, but in all truth.
I don't know if I've said this, but when I wake up drowsy, the first thing I do is talk:
“Dzień dobry Panie Jezu, króluj mi dzisiaj i zawsze, niech się dzieje Twoja wola nie moja”.
I give my authority on every level. It is not that a person who has the Holy Spirit allows the spirit to work only in the church and no longer works outside the church.
There are gay adoptions of children when poor families oppressed by governments have those children taken away.
The hypocrites say: I am not interested in politics. But when they hear bad news from the world they allow themselves to comment.
In closing. It was politics that directed me to this blog as you know. God has convinced me that commit oneself into politics is pointless. Which does not mean shutting up about ungodly laws.
It is thanks to my political commentaries, among others, that a lot of people found their way here and the truth allowed them to wake up. They noticed that the right-left divide is a staged and artificial one. They all play to one goal.
As long as we have a farce called democracy, we have a responsibility to be interested in politics in the context of the Bible.
There's a saying:
“wystarczy bierność ludzi dobrych, by zwyciężyło zło”.
To paraphrase.
The passivity of Christians is enough for ungodly laws to prevail.
Of course we do. Because we love the truth.
John 18:37: Pilate therefore said to Him: Are you a king, then? Jesus answered, Yes, I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.
Go against the flow
https://www.youtube.com/user/idzpodprad
here Mr. Chojecki went the other way.
A pastor should not be a politician or play politics.
Well, exactly, and his support for firearms ownership by Christians is particularly controversial.
Recently I was reading Jesus' statement about putting the sword in its sheath, and I noticed that He spoke about the PRINCIPLE of warning
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword, for Peter's sake, for the Lord's purpose was not to lose any of the twelve (except we know...).
In defending the Lord he could have died.
Where people are armed and the thief knows it, he avoids these places and looks for a place swept away from defense.
It doesn't just work figuratively, either.
The Lord Jesus says that if the master of the house had known that the thief was coming, he would have watched and NOT LET HIM undermine his house.Mt 24.43
Do you have any suggestions on how to prevent it?
Pan Jezus nie zabronił “nie pozwolić”,wręcz mówi jako o czyms oczywistym,że NALEŻY nie pozwolić.
There were cities of refuge in ST,that's interesting.
The Lord Jesus says to give to everyone who asks, do you give to everyone what they want.
He can ask for your house,will you?
Paul says that if someone doesn't want to work let him not eat, and the Lord Jesus says give to everyone.
Musimy interpretować w/g nauki apostolskiej,bo oni rozumieli “co autor miał na myśli”,by nie stac się bardziej święci niz sam BÓG.
I'm sharing fresh insights, pondering, or maybe right?
Kesja: “Dzielę się świezymi spostrzezeniami,rozważam,czy może słusznymi?”
I too have been pondering this topic lately. As far as I know, Jesus told the Apostles to take swords so that prophecy would be fulfilled:
“I rzekł do nich: Gdy was posłałem bez trzosa, bez torby, bez sandałów, czy brakowało wam czegoś? A oni na to: Niczego. On zaś rzekł do nich: Lecz teraz, kto ma trzos, niech go weźmie, podobnie i torbę, a kto nie ma miecza, niech sprzeda suknię swoją i kupi. Albowiem mówię wam, iż musi się wypełnić na mnie to, co napisano: Do przestępców był zaliczony; to bowiem, co o mnie napisano, spełnia się. Oni zaś rzekli: Panie, oto tutaj dwa miecze. A On na to: Wystarczy. I wyszedłszy, udał się według zwyczaju na Górę Oliwną; poszli też z nim uczniowie.” [Ew. Łukasza 22:35-39]
As far as I know, there is no mention in the Bible that Jesus carried a weapon. I also don't remember any mention of the Apostles using weapons in battle (with the already mentioned exception of Peter, who used a sword during Jesus' capture to fulfill a prophecy).
Nie widzę też konsekwencji w podejściu teologicznym. Jeżeli ktoś uznaję dary Ducha za aktualne, cuda i “nadnaturalność” za coś co wciąż jest obecne w życiu Chrześcijan, to dlaczego taka osoba konsekwentnie nie wierzy w nadnaturalną ochronę od Boga? Jezus przecież miał ręce i mógł przecież walczyć, ale nie ma o tym wzmianki(a wielokrotnie uciekał z opresji), natomiast to Bóg Ojciec nad wszystkim czuwał, a Jezus gdyby chciał, to w każdej chwili mógł przywołać aniołów:
“Wtedy rzecze mu Jezus: Włóż miecz swój do pochwy; wszyscy bowiem, którzy miecza dobywają, od miecza giną. Czy myślisz, że nie mógłbym prosić Ojca mego, a On wystawiłby mi teraz więcej niż dwanaście legionów aniołów? Ale jak by wtedy wypełniły się Pisma, że tak się stać musi?” (Mateusza 26:52-54)
Jezusowi wszystko było podległe – nawet prawa fizyki(chodzenie po wodzie), czy zjawiska pogodowe(zgromienie burzy), a przecież wielu ludzi powołuje się na “Jezus Chrystus wczoraj i dziś, ten sam i na wieki.” Nie widzę więc pełnej konsekwencji w rozumowaniu niektórych osób.
That's right, bravo guzzler:
“Lecz teraz, kto ma trzos, niech go weźmie, podobnie i torbę, a kto nie ma miecza, niech sprzeda suknię swoją i kupi. Albowiem mówię wam, iż musi się wypełnić ”
myślę, że nikt nie ma problemu ze zrozumiem tego. “Lecz” spójnik ukazujący kontrast, odmienność od normy. Często się zgadzam z kesją, but I don't have a basis for that right now.
“Nie widzę też konsekwencji w podejściu teologicznym. Jeżeli ktoś uznaję dary Ducha za aktualne, cuda i „nadnaturalność” za coś co wciąż jest obecne w życiu Chrześcijan, to dlaczego taka osoba konsekwentnie nie wierzy w nadnaturalną ochronę od Boga? ”
and here, too, a goal from 30 yards out without a nod.
I have thought a lot about this subject, either we believe in God and rely on faith, or we all sign up for krav maga and then take a shooting course and fight the enemy to the last drop of blood.
Guzzik,
1)Jesus' mission and fulfillment of the prophecies is obvious, there is nothing to discuss here.
2)I am talking about the PRINCIPLE that Jesus gave.
The rule is, if you pick up a gun, expect to die, is that it, man?
It was also the Lord's love that He did not want anyone to perish because of Him, He had a TASK to preserve them all and He did. (John 17.1) and Peter could have died defending the Lord, and he had the task of opening the Kingdom of God with the key.
You did not address the issue with the thief and the permission to defend your home from the thief.!!!!,please do.
“Macie jakieś propozycje ,w jaki sposób nie pozwoliłby? ”
What did you have in mind here?
Did the Lord say:Ooo,unbelievers in God,do you not know that God will protect you from the thief?
No, I take it for granted to protect myself from the thief, the bandit.
The mundane of life.
3)There were 12 disciples at Passover supper, how did they get 2 swords there that they didn't have to go buy. They had it with them and the LORD did not take it out of their hands beforehand?
The Lord says,and he who has no sword,notice:
who has NOT, logic dictates that it was normal for Jesus to think that a man could have a sword, since he says WHO has NOT (yet).
On the AGE have a sword with you! our understanding of Christianity gets worse here.
The Lord also said to Peter:
throw away that sword ,
Have I not yet explained to you sufficiently?
The Lord still had the opportunity to educate them, but we know what he really said.
He said: Put the sword in the scabbard (because I don't want you to die)
.INSIDE,
he didn't say "Dismiss," and that was an opportunity to teach.
You will die soon but not now, put the sword on, for he who fights with it dies with it, that's the rule, remember Peter, so be careful with that.
Why did the Lord Jesus tell them to buy a sword and others and ask, "Did you lack anything when you walked with me? What does this have to do with the prophecy about the criminal?
Why is he asking this?
Why students ask:
Lord, shall we strike with the sword?
After 3 years of walking with you do not know that you can not, such a question?
Even at the willow sword, 2 of them had a sword with them.
The Lord Jesus speaks as a matter of course:
WHO (who) DOESN'T HAVE, as you can see has never so far told them to throw it away.
My point is that it may not turn out that defense is a permission from God, and its absence MAY (a matter for study) be foolishness in the eyes of God, since the Lord Jesus says that if the master of the house had known, he would have prepared himself and would not have let the thief in, he would have defended the house. He does not say, oh God will protect, just trust.
There are different situations and for each one we need God's guidance and not religious schemes.
In the letter to Smyrna, Jesus says that in 10 days they will die, they are forewarned.
As yet we live in this body, and are composed of spirit, soul, and body, and the Lord speaks of the whole man and to the whole man.
As in the story of the lifebelt, you probably know that he waited for rescue from God while drowning and rejected all lifebuoys and boats, and after drowning, when he stood before God and accused him of asking for help and not receiving it, God answered him:
I sent you people with a boat, a lifebelt...
Why you didn't take it.
Pre-uchowow.
Please address the cities of refuge in ST.Who were they for and what were they for?
And please tell me if you would defend your wife, daughter, sister, especially if she is unconverted, in case of attack (rape, abduction, etc.).
I'm not talking about a situation of physical impossibility to defend them.
I would add that the rule is Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not murder, just as the rule was Thou shalt not touch the loaves of the deck, and David ate and it was good.
Not to lie and Rachab lied and well.
Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, or the Law of Love for God and neighbor above the letter of the law.
For today, I understand that I can have a gun, but God talks about the consequences, says don't kill.
.Nowhere will you find that you cannot defend yourself.
And the cities of refuge were for whom? Is not God yesterday and forever the same?
I am allowed everything but not everything is useful.
God says, there is no divorce, He is not for divorce but still allows it, the Lord Jesus says so.
The Lord Jesus also speaks of escape, he does not say,here I quote you:
“dlaczego taka osoba konsekwentnie nie wierzy w nadnaturalną ochronę od Boga?”
God does not say stop, trust, but flee, He warns against using the sword, that in battle one dies, so consider the man, but DOES NOT FORBID, as you can clearly see, to have it.
The Lord speaks of the wisdom of a king going to war to count his forces and possibly surrender.
.Tu więc znowu cos innego —poddanie się.
Are we to enclose God in a frame?
God will not give up.
The Lord Jesus did not heal anyone identically, why?
Because we would have created a method and a relationship with God, hearing the Holy Spirit would not have been necessary.
It is Allah who knows whether you should put the sword in the scabbard or not, whether you should flee or not, whether you should surrender or not, whether you should stand still and not move and wait for supernatural defense, protection or not.
That is why we need the Holy Spirit, for it is He and not the Law that guides us.
4)why does such a person consistently not believe in supernatural protection from God?
Because God doesn't always work supernaturally, and if he doesn't tell you that, then it's foolish to wait for the supernatural, just as it's foolish to believe that God doesn't work supernaturally through his children today.
We need wisdom to know our God, to hear Him, to know what His will is for my individual life, not to wait for the supernatural when it should be natural, or to close God to the supernatural, because God is already finished with it, changed.
The Lord Jesus quoted Satan not to put the Lord God to the test.
If I have two roads at night, one lighted and the other not, I will not put God to the test and go the dark one, even though it is shorter, to get maybe hit in the head, but I will go the lighted one, because it is wise, unless the Holy Spirit says clearly: go the dark one.
Jesus had a different mission in God's plan than to be supernaturally saved at this point in his earthly life, so he was not saved because that was not his mission, but since it was in God's plan he was supernaturally raised from the dead.
5)”Jezusowi wszystko było podległe – nawet prawa fizyki(chodzenie po wodzie), czy zjawiska pogodowe(zgromienie burzy), a przecież wielu ludzi powołuje się na „Jezus Chrystus wczoraj i dziś, ten sam i na wieki.” Nie widzę więc pełnej konsekwencji w rozumowaniu niektórych osób.”
Jesus said that He says nothing that He has not heard from the Father and does nothing that He has not seen from the Father.
Yes, he walked on water when Father wanted, he weathered storms when Father wanted, and it's the same today.
If the Holy Spirit clearly tells you to put your hands on the tumor and it will disappear, then it will disappear, but if He does not tell you, then you can sit with your hand on the tumor for the next three years and nothing will happen, unless God shows mercy to the sick person.
Therefore, I repeat, you need a deep relationship with Jesus so that through the Holy Spirit He can work as He did then.
Just because some people spell reality doesn't change the fact that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I trust that you will read and respond to the questions and content, because I worked hard.
I can not say anything on this topic on 100%, because I am looking for, believing, who seeks finds.
Zaznaczam,że z broni posiadam tylko noże w kuchni, …..prochowca nie mam.
And can I have a slingshot like Daniel?
Only at school we had kbks, but you had a heart attack and classes were over, so I didn't even shoot once.
As a woman, I'm not attracted to it, but it's about the truth.
Kesya: "Peter could have died defending the Lord,and he had the task of opening the kingdom of God with the key.He died afterwards,that we know."
Since Peter was assigned the proper task, and Jesus could have asked the Father for more than twelve legions of angels to help at any time, it is doubtful in my opinion that Peter could have died. Even if Peter had died, Jesus could have resurrected him.
"1)The mission of Jesus and the fulfillment of the prophecies is obvious,there is nothing to discuss here."
Yes. But did Jesus fight, or even own a weapon?
"You have not addressed the issue with the thief and the permission to defend your home from the thief.!!!!,please.
Do you have any suggestions as to how he would not allow it? "
What did the Lord have in mind here?"
The important point is that the landlord in question knew beforehand of the impending danger, not even so much that he suspected it, but that he knew. If he had lived all the time in the conviction that at any moment his house might be attacked, he would have been alert all the time, and the fact of being aware of the impending attack would not have been an exceptional event for which he would have had to prepare himself (analogy to, for example, carrying a gun with him all the time "just in case". If such an attitude is taken consistently, then it would be best to walk around with a first aid kit, a bulletproof vest, pads, and weapons of various types for every eventuality, and with the number for help dialed immediately). It also doesn't say who the host was. If he was a non-believer, then I consider God's help in this case to be doubtful - then in fact he would have had to rely only on himself, on his skills in fighting, or in securing/barricading the house, or have some acquaintances. If he was a believer, he could have first of all watched and prayed (as is often recommended in the Bible), he could have secured the house better, prepared a previously informed guard, and so on, trusting God that everything would happen according to His will.
"The Lord says, and he who has no sword, notice:
who has NOT, logic dictates that it was normal for Jesus to think that a man could have a sword, since it says WHO has NOT (yet).
As for the use and possession of weapons, one passage can be taken out of context, and interpreted both ways. You could just as well say that the Apostles should have already had swords because Jesus had told them about them earlier, you could say that they were at a point in the fulfillment of prophecy where they should have already been prepared. It also doesn't say that these swords were carried by the Apostles beforehand. Are there more passages that say that the Apostles had, and used weapons? Paul, for example, had a lot of problems, was persecuted, and yet as far as I know there is no record that he used, or even possessed, weapons.
"He said, 'Put the sword in the scabbard (because I don't want you to die).
.INSIDE,
he didn't say "Dismiss, and that was the opportunity to teach."
So here we are taking into account direct commands from Jesus. However, as far as I know, Mr. Chojecki takes a more prophylactic approach to weapons - we do not carry them when God wants us to, but we carry them with us at all times "just in case".
Why did the Lord Jesus tell them to buy a sword and others and ask, "Did you lack anything when you walked with me? What does this have to do with the prophecy about the criminal?
Why is he asking that?"
“I rzekł do nich: Gdy was posłałem bez trzosa, bez torby, bez sandałów, czy brakowało wam czegoś? A oni na to: Niczego. On zaś rzekł do nich: Lecz teraz, kto ma trzos, niech go weźmie, podobnie i torbę, a kto nie ma miecza, niech sprzeda suknię swoją i kupi. Albowiem mówię wam, iż musi się wypełnić na mnie to, co napisano: Do przestępców był zaliczony; to bowiem, co o mnie napisano, spełnia się. Oni zaś rzekli: Panie, oto tutaj dwa miecze. A On na to: Wystarczy. I wyszedłszy, udał się według zwyczaju na Górę Oliwną; poszli też z nim uczniowie.” [Ew. Łukasza 22:35-39]
I think that since Jesus sent the Apostles earlier without a purse, bag, or even shoes, it is unlikely that they had swords with them either. One can also sense in Jesus' question "were you lacking anything" a suggestion that Jesus sent them then without many things and yet they were not lacking anything, whereas now it is the other way round - they should be equipped even with swords. If carrying weapons were so common, Jesus would not even have had to specifically mention preparing swords.
"Why do students ask:
Lord, shall we strike with the sword?
After 3 years of dating you, don't they know you can't, that's the question?"
You might as well say that they asked in astonishment, because if we assume that for the Apostles carrying a sword and defending themselves by using it was the order of the day, why would they suddenly ask if they should use swords?
"My point is lest it turn out that the defense is a permission from God, and the lack of it MAY (a matter for study) be foolishness in God's eyes, since the Lord Jesus says that if the master of the house had known, he would have prepared himself and not allowed the thief."
I understand. I also have a similar approach, but I shared my observations opposite to yours, because this issue is not so simple after all.
"As in the story of the lifebelt, you probably know that he waited for God to rescue him by drowning and rejected all lifebuoys and boats, and after drowning, when he stood before God and accused him of asking for help and not receiving it, God answered him:
I sent you people with a boat, a lifebelt...
Why you didn't take it.
Foreboding."
Here you have already given an extreme example. I was not entirely clear. When I wrote about supernatural protection, I also had in mind such things as, for example, God's use of man, the appropriate arrangement of the situation, the preparation/imposition of so-called "coincidences".
"Address please the cities of refuge in ST.Who were they for and why?"
The cities of refuge mentioned in ST were for unintentional killers, they were places of refuge. Since manslaughter was also punishable(hiding in one city), I don't see support for killing here. Of course, first of all, order in the ST looked different than in the NT.
"And please tell me if you would defend your wife, daughter, sister, especially if they were unconverted, in case of attack (rape, abduction, etc.).
I'm not talking about a situation of physical impossibility to defend them."
Yes, I would defend. I do not walk around with a gun on a daily basis, so I can only trust God that if there is a need, God will arrange everything as it should be - if the situation cannot be calmly controlled, if the attackers are not discouraged (if they do not get, for example, supernaturally sudden diarrhea, or a heart attack, and will not give up), then God may use appropriately a human, in this case for example my hands, or God may arrange this situation in many other ways - suddenly someone may appear to help, or an attacker "just happens" to fall down a weapon which I intercept, and so on. I do not exclude that killing a person may be necessary in some cases, but I am not sure about that either.
"I would add that the rule is Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not murder, just as the rule was Thou shalt not touch the loaves of the deck, and David ate, and it was good.
Not to lie and Rachab lied and well.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, or the Law of Love for God and neighbor above the letter of the law."
"Rachab lied, and well" ? Where do you find confirmation for your statement? As for Rachab's lie, the very facts are given that she simply lied, and was nowhere commended for it.
"I'll quote you:
"why does such a person consistently fail to believe in supernatural protection from God?"
God does not say stop, trust, but flee, He warns against using the sword, that in battle one dies, so consider the man, but DOES NOT forbid, as you can clearly see, to have it."
If there is an option to escape, why put yourself in unnecessary danger? God also gave reason, and instincts for healthy fear.
"The Lord Jesus quoted Satan not to put the Lord God to the test."
David going up against Goliath didn't even put on his armor. Did you think that was putting God to the test? Do you think that by not carrying weapons with us everywhere we go we are testing God?
"Jesus had another task in God's plan than to be supernaturally saved at this point in his earthly life, so he was not protected because that was not his mission, but since it was in God's plan he supernaturally rose from the dead."
Yes, but as I wrote earlier, as far as I know, there is no mention of Jesus carrying a weapon or fighting. Neither did the apostles have to - at least there is no mention that they had to carry weapons and fight (apart from the above mentioned passage).
"Yes, he walked on water when Father wanted, he weathered storms when Father wanted, and it's the same today.
If the Holy Spirit clearly tells you, put your hands on the tumor and it will disappear, then it will disappear, and if it does not tell you, then you can sit with your hand on the tumor for the next three years and nothing will happen, unless God shows mercy to the sick person."
I think so too.
Guzzik-Kesia 2:1
🙂
Just on the other hand, if Christians are not in politics, who will be? Well to put it mildly non-Christians.
This is such a paradox. Yes yes yes, but like Kukiz or Korwin Mikke they will force good laws. Do you understand Palnar?
JKM and K are questionable quality Christians.Look at Ted Cruz.Wouldn't it be good if he became president of the USA? He is a biblical Christian, wouldn't it be good for a biblical Christian to rule the US?
This is not about Christian parties. There are no such parties. It is about those who refer to the Bible and their electorate appreciates them for it and presses them.
I would also add:
Marian Kowalski.
Kukizowi nie ufałam od poczatku i nie ufam,dla mnie farbowany ,z “misją” ale jesli będzie optował czasami za czyms pozytecznym,to trzeba go w tym poprzec,oczywista oczywistość.
Korwin z kolei to jedynie koło chrzescijaństwa przeszedł szybkim krokiem,3-cia “żona”,40 lat młodsza,niech tam ,ale dzieci z nia przedslubne a własciwie wszeteczne.
I bless their children, and may their parents repent.
Korwin would introduce light pedophilia, GMO is healthy according to him, as he said, so I do not support him, but Kowalski was in Korwin's UPR with Chojecki, so he has healthy economic views, and recently he has been using the word Christians instead of Catholics and Jesus as Lord, and he denounces Papa Frank boldly saying that he is a fake, for which he exposes himself to fanatic Catholics, but he said that if this is the truth, he will not remain silent. Maybe with Chojecki he will convert, we pray for him.
He defended Fr Miedlar, saying that he had urged the ONR youth to make Jesus the King of their hearts, that this is what radical Catholicism is all about, so why did they ban him from preaching?
etc..
I would add that in that sermon, he did not mention Mary.Oops.
With all due respect admin and omitting Chojecki.
Where does it say he can't.
He admittedly said clearly that he has a mission to shepherd his flock and does not run for parliament, local government, but to deny him the right to comment on reality and to act when justice and truth demand it, is too much.
We listen to Idzpodprad, we take what we think is good, which does not prevent us from being uncritical.
Besides, I don't see him as a politician or doing politics, he shares his vision of reality and encourages to be active.
Before that he was a politician,I think 17 years with Korwin in the UPR but he resigned for the church.
Thanks for the article.
But being an observer is passivity. We can discuss politics but what real influence do we have on it? Kosik posted a text a few days ago about Christians getting involved in politics as a counterbalance to Kesia's words that she is for action.
signing petitions, participating in elections by voting for parties other than those in the parliament, writing on blogs that they are introducing ungodly laws based on quotes
There is no pressure on parties from the Christian side so parties that consider themselves Christian, i.e. Roman Catholic parties, rule.
Musiałaby być to partia złożona z chrześcijan, a taka raczej nie powstanie, bo przebudzeni chrześcijanie są skupieni na aspektach duchowych mocniej niż światowych. Do polityki potrzeba dużego zaangażowania w sprawy ziemskie, a to odstręcza od niej, bo dookoła wszystko jest “z diabła” (przeciwnicy polityczni, oświata, pęd za kasą, wojny).
I replied to Palnar on the same
Jedna z ustaw wyprodukowana przez “chrześcijańską” partię –
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1027191,title,Kontrowersyjne-przepisy-weszly-w-zycie-Stosowanie-aresztu-tymczasowego-na-jeszcze-wieksza-skale,wid,18288292,wiadomosc.html
Anyone can be shut down on such a basis.
I fear that they are preparing this for a specific purpose and according to a set plan. I'm afraid!
“W myśl znowelizowanych przepisów kodeksu postępowania karnego podstawą orzeczenia o areszcie tymczasowym mogą być dokumenty jawne dla oskarżonego i obrońcy oraz dowody ze znajdujących się w odrębnej teczce, utajnionych zeznań świadka z tzw. art. 250 par. 2b, które w ogóle nie są udostępniane obronie ani oskarżonemu (art. 249a par. 1 pkt.2). Osoba z art. 250 par. 2b to świadek, co do którego prokurator uzna, że zachodzi uzasadniona obawa NIEBEZPIECZEŃSTWA dla ŻYCIA, zdrowia albo wolności świadka lub osoby dla niego najbliższej.”
Magdalena, have mercy, I beg you, read, listen before you publish.
It was the same with the ONR.
Your attitude forces me to defend the truth,not the party.
We are not talking about Christian parties, but about parties, politicians who follow Christian values. (There are even atheists who follow Christian ethics).
Moreover, I will remind you that the ruling party is currently opposed to sodomy, etc., so it would be a sin not to support it and let the sodomites and leftists rule.
What are you afraid of, woman? Cut off those media that frighten PiSem, read carefully and you will know.
You also gave links to PO and Psl, when there was the largest in Europe surveillance of people, they wanted homosexual relationships, looking for a teenage abortion hospital, because another doctor refused to murder and expose the girl in the future to infertility?
“Czeguj Ty kobieto się boisz, odetnij te straszące PISem media, sama czytaj rzetelnie i będziesz wiedzieć.”
Dawałaś też linki za PO i PSL…”(nie przypominam sobie).
People have different opinions and sympathies As for me, I already wrote (maybe you missed it) that I don't support PO, PSL, Nowoczesna, PiS or any other party.
I bardzo proszę – nie sugeruj mi, że popieram sodomię i wszelkie inne odchylenia itd. Nie zarzucaj mi rzeczy, które nie mają nic wspólnego z rzeczywistością, bo tak naprawdę nic o mnie nie wiesz.
You know nothing about me and it puzzles me why you attack me (this was true before the presidential election and it is true now).
Not everyone has to do what you do and support those you support.
And one more thing ! I'm not afraid of Kesja
I TRUST IN THE LORD.
Ps. It is rude to accuse someone of being unintelligent.
“Strach się bać” – to takie powiedzenie (tak gwoli wyjaśnienia).
Amen. !
This is not an Amen to myself but after your admin post, it came out unfortunate, although who knows, maybe I should also say Amen to myself.
“podpisywanie petycji, udział w wyborach głosując na inne partie niz są w sejmie, pisząc na blogach, że są wprowadzane ustaw bezbozne w oparciu o cytaty
Nie ma nacisku na partie od strony chrześcijan więc rządzą partie uważające się za chrześcijańskie czyli partie rzymsko katolickie.”
Magdalena,
Okay, I'm not gonna say we're stroking each other.
“Atakuję”Twoje poglady tak jak Ty moje i nie robie z tego halo.
Even if you do it with a pen and not a hammer, it does not change the fact that you have a different opinion.
I'm saying that you link false texts, because after checking the source, it turns out that they are lying (surprisingly, they are still coming from the ONE mainstream media).
If someone lies about your words, I'll tell them to stop, and that's all I'm saying.
You're implying that I think you're for sodomy.
No, I didn't even say anything about it, I said that you link lying texts and there is no agreement on that, so there is no need to argue.
I will not agree with you if I see and think differently just because you are my sister in Christ.
Maybe in real life we'd like each other a lot.
I have no sympathy for either Pis or ONR, if they do good, I will support them, if they do bad, I will reproach them, it's as simple as that.
I will always support the actions of people who are for God's Law at any given time, even if it is Palikot at any given time.
It would be very good if everyone did what I'm talking about and acted or at least supported, because it would be a different reality...
Individual people will do little.Of course prayer.
I don't have my facts right.
It is always a question of whether we are representing God's right or man's ideas at any given time.
I speak up strongly when I am convinced that God is right behind me.
If someone proves with arguments that I am wrong, I change my thinking according to the words of Lord Jesus:
“Jesli zle powiedziałem,UDOWODNIJ (WYKAŻ) mi to ,a jesli nie to dlaczego mnie bijesz.”
Sometimes I think that the words about the one who gives way are about the church (2Tes 2.6).
“Niegrzecznie jest zarzucać komuś, że jest nierozgarnięty”
Why do you think so low of yourself, I think very highly and highly of you.
I did not even stammer about it, I asked you to check and not let the author of the text suggest, program before you link.
I do not know how to write to you, because I am afraid that you will misinterpret something and I have no such intentions.
On the contrary, I greatly appreciate your zeal and love for the Lord.
PS.
As for the president,I had a different opinion and articulated it.
Nie można Twego zdania “zaatakować ,jeśli się mysli inaczej?
Growth
(chciałam napisać “rozwój” ale szybko pomyslałam,ze napiszesz,ze powiedziałam o Tobie,ze jestes niedorozwinieta,więc zmieniłam )
is often (maybe always) over a difference of opinion, not a nodding off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tk19kJLAHY&list=UUY2z85nZdY5sRq7Lgpt0pmg
Piękna pieśń “Snieg”
(Just please don't think I'm trying to freeze you out), I think it's beautiful.
I love you Magdalene, it's easy to tell from a distance.
Kesya
Też Cię kocham siostrzyczko. (kto się czubi, ten się lubi – coś w tym jest).
May God guide and guard you.
Magdalene,
for example, that I did not insist on you, but it is about truth and justice ALWAYS.
I'm sure that neither Agnes nor the admin will feel attacked, the very title of the blog compels to attitudes seeking the truth and exposing the lies, lies even unintentional even if it concerns us.
After all, the devil is in the details.
Greetings to you.
“Agnieszko i adminie
.. Petersburg will not fall" -
says actor and director Wojciech Olszański,
participating in the historical reconstruction as Aleksander Jablonowski" (kierunki.info.pl)
-this video title misrepresents.
Nie nakręcajmy się nawet jesli jestesmy dobrymi detektywami.”
Wyprodukowano robota “przeciw zamieszkom”. Chyba zabezpieczają się przed rosnącym poznaniem prawdy (I nie chodzi mi o to, że nasz bart w wierze przytył :)). Wiedzą, że będą zmuszeni do posługiwania się robotami do tłumienia zamieszek.
http://www.prisonplanet.pl/nauka_i_technologia/chiny_prezentuja_robota,p299770038
brother*
Thank you in the name of Jesus Christ for this post. I can't help but agree with it.
Tylko jest jeden mały problem… To politycy i ich zatruci jadem nienawiści wielbiciele nie chcą się odp…alantować od nas, tylko ciągle mają do nas jakieś pretensje… Jak żyć?
https://youtu.be/eQ_MZpUPQv0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHT7boKmdFQ
I am repeating the post under this topic because it fits better here. I will urge you to read again Andrzej Lobaczewski's book "Political Ponerology", or the science of the nature of evil. The book is on wolna-poland to download, but it is worth to look at the website pracownia4.wordpress.com, which I recommend because of the valuable articles that will help to understand the topic (mainly the concepts used in the book will be more understandable). After reading the book, read the Bible again. Conclusions will come out by themselves and you will understand the surrounding reality and the Bible, which is not only a spiritual food but also a historical and political book.
Until Poland is spiritually reborn, things will not be normal here.
The Polish spiritual life is not an active creation (creation-action), but vegetation (decay-destruction), a life worthy not of a man, but of a worm. This is how the Church has shaped us.
‘bierna wegetacja
He who cannot see the darkness cannot see the light.
Politycy są wypadkową społeczeństwa… Żale i pretensje słać do watykanu. https://youtu.be/JUCYyJX7ThA.
You want to test someone? Say Jesus and either the person runs away or stays.
I literally bailed someone out recently by showing them I had a Bible in my hands 🙂 haha cool stuff.
Życie to sztuka podejmowania często trudnych decyzji. Bezproblemowe życie na tym padole nie istnieje…
Przekaz kulturowy w babilonie jest taki: Masz szmalec jesteś ktoś. A to skąd go wytrzaśniesz to kwestia drugorzędna… Haczyk polega na ustawieniu systemu pod bezdusznych ludzi… I bądź tu na tyle obrotny by nie przymierać głodem, ale też nie być ostatnim szubrawcem.
You won't get to people with a mind that has been scarred/molded from anything with normal spirituality without God's intervention.
Ciemięzca watykański zgnoił Polaków duchowo, a Ci go jeszcze bronią… OBŁĘD!
A Christian must be spiritually fertile, not barren like a Catholic. The country ( not the state ) should have the benefit of him, not another pain.
If you stop being interested in politics, they'll turn off our internet.
http://www.msn.com/pl-pl/wiadomosci/polska/szok-ziobro-chce-wy%C5%82%C4%85cza%C4%87-strony-internetowe/ar-BBsgXtP?li=BBr5MK7&ocid=SL5MDHP
Jacob Berlin,
thoroughly!
Nie do końca rozumiem, co masz Adminie na myśli mówiąc “polityka”? Ponad to wydaje mi się, że zbyt łatwo szafujesz wyrzutami/ oskarżeniami wobec ludzi, którzy nie interesują się rządami w kraju. Podejrzewam, że wszyscy tutaj (na Blogu) mamy zbliżone poglądy polityczne w kwestiach światopoglądowych, ponieważ będą one wypadkową Słowa Bożego… Wszyscy powiedzą zdecydowane NIE dla aborcji, homopropagandy, a różne zdania mogą się pojawić w przypadku np. kary śmierci… Nie każdy będzie pewnie za wolnością, liberalizacją dostępu do broni czy narkotyków… Ciężko również o wspólny mianownik w sprawach polityki zagranicznej, zbrojeniach, czy prywatyzacji… Dobrze wiemy, że na wiele tych spraw Biblia nie da jednoznacznej odpowiedzi, bo z jednej strony Ktoś powie wolna wola, a ktoś inny państwo wyznaniowe… Dobrze wiemy, że Jezus również nie interesował się wydarzeniami na szczytach władzy, mimo, że wszyscy mieli wobec Niego takie oczekiwania. Dobrze wiemy, że nasze wymarzone Królestwo jest gdzie indziej, a każdy wybór to “wybór” pomiędzy dżumą i cholerą – w najlepszym przypadku tzw. “mniejsze zło”. Można się udzielać społecznie, ale zawsze będzie to “pudrowanie trupa”, zawsze będą to sprawy świata, który i tak pójdzie w zatracenie. Zresztą proszę zobaczyć – partia rządząca ma Boga na sztandarach, a ich kościelni sojusznicy korzystają z tych samych przekładów Pisma co My… Państwo boże było budowane, przez wielu, od wieków i każdy widzi “efekty”…
Paul Misiaszek,
“Wszyscy powiedzą zdecydowane NIE dla aborcji, homopropagandy.”
Tell me, in what way do they all say it, so that it translates into practical life, can you explain what you mean?
Admin wrote:
“Wystarczy bierność chrześcijan, by zwyciężyły ustawy bezbożne.”
This is only 1 sentence, but in practice how much evil these godless laws will bring.
What an impact on our children, young people, often the damage is severe or not recoverable at all....
Politics, as Father Rydzyk says, is concern for the general good.
Everyone, according to the conviction he or she has today, should be concerned about the welfare of his or her neighbors and the nation in which God has placed us, take a clear stand, opt for God's laws in practice, that is, by prayer, word and action.
It sounds a bit pathetic, but there is so much down-to-earth today that a little pathos doesn't hurt.
Amazing!
And lately I've just had the dilemma of whether my interest in politics is really compatible with Christianity!
Thank God for this text!!!!!
As many such general articles on any subject, sprinkled with the Bible, as possible, please.
Pastor Chojecki cannot be said not to be interested in politics. With his radical statements he recently attracted the attention of even some mainstream media. Father Popiełuszko was also interested in politics. In the lecture linked below Pastor Chojecki proves how interested in politics the hierarchs of the Catholic Church have been for centuries. However, while priests like Popieluszko are persecuted by the system, pot-bellied priests and their smaller colleagues in cassocks benefit from their interest in politics. Chojecki amply reveals the true face of such Catholic heroes as Wyszyński, Wojtyła and the current idol of the world leftist movement, F1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TehRX1AQ_Og
Chojecki is obviously interested in politics, but he is not a politician himself, unless we go by the definition that a politician is a person who cares about the welfare of others, then yes.
Wtedy ojciec i mąż jest politykiem w domu (polityka rodzinna),wójt w gminie(polityka gminna),pastor w zborze (polityka “religijna”…)
Pan Chojecki balansuje na granicy definicji określenia “polityk”. Nie jest w organizacji politycznej, ale organizuje akcję polityczną “Jestem chrześcijaninem”:
http://trybun.org.pl/2015/11/03/wywiad-z-pastorem-pawlem-chojeckim-inicjatorem-akcji-jestemchrzescijaninem/
Supposing a Christian with a gun is bad PR for Christians and you know very well that we will not come to an agreement on this issue. Guzzik answered you well.
To me, your support for Chojecki is fear-mongering.
Admin,
1)you are right -fear,I would be afraid to pick up a gun in my hand and shoot.
I'd be afraid I'd accidentally hit and kill.
That's why it's good that they learn to shoot to deter, to injure, not to kill.
2)How is it that a Christian can be a doctor, preferably a good one,
a teacher, preferably a good one.
a baker, preferably a good one.
and a politician, and a good one at that,
concerned about the welfare of the people can NOT be, not sure why it can't be, because it's supposedly distasteful.
Dlatego że nie “może” niby być,polityka jest brzydka,bo nie ma tam chrzescijan.
Sorry, and no light and salt needed there?
Who invented the word politician,politician and when.
Jest dobre słowo “,minister” czyli sługa..
And doesn't one have to compromise, and walk in a foreign yoke with unbelievers to do anything more concrete as a politician? (2 Cor. 6.14-15)
Look at Dan 2.48
48 Then the king exalted Daniel:
gave him many rich gifts and made him ruler over the whole province of BABYLOON and superior over all the wise men (Magi) of Babylon.
49 Daniel PRESENTED the king to entrust the administration of the province of BABILOON to Shadrach, Meshak, and Abed-Neg; but Daniel stayed in the king's court.
Daniel PROSIŁ nawet o “polityczne” etaty w Babilonie !!!! dla przyjaciół.
Jeśli nie zdradzasz Pana,to takie same kompromisy w polityce jak w życiu codziennym,w domu ,w pracy,u lekarza,w sklepie,fryzjera…
There may come a time when, like any job, you have to quit because of your conscience.
Uzupełnię o “POLITYKACH” babilońskich
Dn 3. 12″ Są tutaj jednak mężowie żydowscy, których uczyniłeś zwierzchnikami miasta babilońskiego, Szadrak, Meszak i Abed-Nego; mężowie ci
They do NOT count against you, the king.
do NOT worship your god nor do
oddają pokłonu złotemu posągowi, który wzniosłeś”.
Above Babylon,and here Egypt and Pharaoh.
1 Moj 4o-45
40 Ty zatem będziesz nad moim dworem i twoim rozkazom będzie posłuszny cały mój naród. Jedynie godnością królewską będę cię przewyższał”. 41 I powiedział faraon Józefowi:
“Oto ustanawiam cię RZĄDCĄ całego Egiptu!”
42 Whereupon Pharaoh took off his ring!!!
z palca i włożył go na palec Józefa, i kazał go oblec w szatę z najczystszego lnu, a potem zawiesił mu na szyi złoty łańcuch. 43 I kazał go obwozić na drugim swym wozie, a wołano przed nim: “Abrek!”
Faraon ustanawiając Józefa rządcą całego Egiptu, 44 rzekł do niego: “Ja jestem faraonem, ale bez twej zgody nikt nie ośmieli się czegokolwiek przedsięwziąć w całym kraju egipskim”, 45 i nadał Józefowi imię!!!! Safnat Paneach. Dał mu też za żonę Asenat, córkę kapłana z On, imieniem Poti Fera. I tak stał się
Joseph the government of Egypt.
government of Egypt-brrr
new name from pharaoh-fu
ring from pharaoh-jewel
łańcuch od faraona– !!!!!!!
I recommend the sequel.
Guzzik
“Czyli tutaj bierzemy pod uwagę bezpośrednie polecenia od Jezusa. Natomiast z tego co wiem, Pan Chojecki do broni podchodzi bardziej profilaktycznie – nie nosimy wtedy kiedy Bóg wyraźnie tak chce, tylko mamy ją przy sobie cały czas „na wszelki wypadek”.
I didn't know we were talking about Chojecki, I thought we were just talking about the Bible, but since...
Here, brother, you've gone too far.
Chojecki has a gun at home in a safe according to regulations and is in a shooting club.
she doesn't wear it all the time.
You guys got a hold of him or something
.He is talking about defense not offense.
It's a sin to be photographed with a gun, what kind of sin?
Whether you are armed or unarmed, if you don't renounce Jesus, they will kill you or lock you up.
He didn't kill anyone, he didn't injure anyone, why all the fuss.
The Bible does not prohibit weapons, it prohibits murder.
You yourself don't know, as you write, that defending others can get someone killed, so why keep calling Chojecki.
Jemu w akcji “Jestem chrześcijaninem” chodziło o to,by w zniewiesciałym światku chrześcijańskim wywołać dyskusję.
He speaks of capital punishment in the context of the letter to the Romans, that power is to punish evil.
Did he hit a sensitive chord in some people, that such a jazz around him.
Often the devil causes a ruckus, so I wonder who is behind it.
There are only 2 options.
I do not believe in a God who forbids us to defend ourselves otherwise we would have the instinct of life, self-defense from evil.
Siłowa forma, ucieczka ,poddanie się – to jest przecież obrona tylko w róznej formie.
I can't understand that some people will just stand there and say, take me, rape my wife, tear up my children.
This is where the law of loving your neighbor is off!!!
Love for the attacker yes, he must not be hurt, but for your own children, your brother's sister no longer, let him, this attacker hurt them, what the hell, I'm a Christian, I can watch before I'm in line.
For me, it's impossible to comprehend.
I'm not talking about you just these weird people .
I read love your neighbor as yourself.
I don't want to be harmed and I would like to be helped if I am in danger, so I don't want others to be harmed by attackers in my presence and if there is something I can do, I want it.
I don't know, maybe I will become paralyzed and do nothing, I haven't been there, I don't know, but I want to know what God has to say about it.
Why did they let Paul down in the trash,let them kill the torturers.
Of course you can't get paranoid and fly around with guns all the time or hire bodyguards - even though they might kill or something, hard, they will, but to say I can't defend myself, if I can shoot well, is to scare away the thief or injure him, after all, he pushed himself, what such an unconscious (hence the name Evil-Doer)
Kesja: “Tu sie bracie zapędziłes.”
Jeśli się zapędziłem, to cofam podany przykład Pana Chojeckiego, natomiast napisałem o profilaktycznym noszeniu broni – w tym przypadku jak napisałaś chodzi o trzymanie broni w domu “na wszelki wypadek”. Skoro dobrze jest trzymać broń w domu na wszelki wypadek, to przypuszczam, że jeśli byłoby to legalne, to w grę wchodziłoby też chodzenie z bronią przy sobie poza domem, natomiast są to moje przypuszczenia, i mogę się mylić.
I mentioned Mr. Chojecki in my comment because it links to the thread we are writing under, he was mentioned in those comments as well, and you seem to have gleaned/are gleaning from his teaching on gun ownership and politics, which influences your current approach(how right I'm not sure, I'm still pondering this topic).
As for the rest of what you wrote and the excerpts you provided, I would have to think about it more carefully to write something more concrete, and at the moment I cannot do so. I will refer to the following point.
Kesja: “Po co Pawła spuszczali w koszu,niechby zabili oprawcy.”
Tak jak napisałem wcześniej, i zdaje się że sama też to przyznajesz – Bóg dał nam rozum, i instynkt zdrowego strachu. Po co niepotrzebnie wystawiać się na niebezpieczeństwo? Paweł uciekł, a mógł przecież stanąć naprzeciw przeciwnikom, i swoją bronią(jeżeli w ogóle taką miał) w obronie własnej ich pozabijać, prawda? Tak samo jak Gospodarz domu na który szykuje się napad – Gospodarz mógłby zabrać rodzinę, uciec i dać obrabować swój dom, a może nawet zabrać co cenniejsze(tym bardziej, że spodziewał się ataku), lub grozić bronią złodziejowi, co mogłoby doprowadzić do zabicia złodzieja, i narażenia na to samo siebie oraz swojej rodziny.