Buy codeine. Hydro codeine. Codeine source of. Codeine acetametaphen. Allergic symptoms signs codeine. Codeine and pseudoephedrine separation. Side effects of codeine….

Dude… what the hell kind of word is “believism”?

RD on December 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Thank you, for your question. Read “What is easy believism?” It should help you. James asked, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20). Of course, salvation is of grace, accepted by faith, since no one can earn it, and only God can know the heart and the reality of a professed faith. What James is saying is the reality of that faith can only be demonstrated to others by good works (that is, the things you do and say – your lifestyle). If you’re having premarital sex and getting drunk, and swearing, all the time, etc, and not thinking twice about it, there’s a very good chance that you are not a saved Christian. Unfortunately, this is the case with millions of people all over the world. They think they are saved and going to heaven because they believe God exists, but they are not doing what God says. They are not following Christ. It’s called “easy believism”. That’s why the apostle Paul encouraged us to, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5). A “reprobate” is one who has failed a proof test. Any Christian who is doubting and disobeying God’s Word should carefully examine the reality of their professed conversion to Christ. Watch this brief video for more. Thank you.

I had to Google “believism”. Apparently invoking the term is all the rage these days. Here’s what one preacher had to say about it, on his blog:

http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/easy-believism/

Sure, we should do good works after we have believed in Christ just as the Bible says — this is not for our salvation but because he saved us and now we do His works to show our love for our Savior. [Ephesians 2:10]

I refuse to believe that the God of the Universe would promote and offer a “Hard Believism” requiring anything other than our one time decision to simply trust Jesus Christ for what He is — The Savior, His Gift to mankind.

“Believe it or not, I’m trying to help you. It might not seem like it, but I am…”

I guess he’s soooo Holy hes gotta tie himself to the ground to not get taken up into heaven by a whirlwind.

WastelandMan on December 8, 2008 at 1:15 AM

Am I a good person, WastelandMan? No! Jesus said, “there is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). I am a wicked vile sinner, and have committed sins just like everybody else. I am no different than any of you, okay. So many people posting messages here have been lulled into a false sense of security thinking they have eternal life when nowhere in the Bible does it support the idea that a true Christian can remain carnal for an entire lifetime. It is sad to see you overlook the intended message here, which is the danger of easy believism.

apacalyps on December 6, 2008 at 3:05 AM

Jiminy Christmas…
I am just glad it aint this guy judging me for all eternity.
beams and motes just don’t seem to matter with this guy.
I guess he’s soooo Holy hes gotta tie himself to the ground to not get taken up into heaven by a whirlwind.

shakes head sadly….

-Wasteland Man.

I am a Christian whether that bothers you or not.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM

You’re absolutely deceiving yourself Esthier! Christians don’t swear and use dirty language on a regular basis. They don’t brag of drinking and getting DRUNK on a regular basis. They don’t post sexually suggestive messages on a regular basis. They don’t tempt others to sin on a regular basis. Those are not the works of a truly converted person. A person who has truly believed in Jesus will have a progressively changed life. With true salvation comes repentance and a desire not to sin anymore. I’m not lying to you, okay. Believe it or not, I’m trying to help you. It might not seem like it, but I am. Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers. You are what is known as a carnal Christian. You think you’re a Christian, but you’re not. That is why Paul said to “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5). A “reprobate” is one who has failed a proof test. Listen to me carefully. The 2nd Commandment says you should not make for yourself a graven image. You should not make an idol with either your hand or your mind. You are creating idols, images of God. There is ONE God and that commandment says you should not make any graven image of any likeness whether it is on earth, hell, under the sea, or on the land (Exodus 20:4). What you’ve done is conveniently made a god to suit yourself. I did it! For many years I did it! You see, you think, ah, my god is a god of love. My god would never send me to hell. I’m not doing anything wrong. And you’d be right. Your god would never send you to hell because he couldn’t. He doesn’t exist. He’s a figment of your imagination. You’ve shaped a god to suite your sin! There is ONE God! He said, “I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). He’s Perfect, Holy, Pure, Righteous! Esthier… this is serious business. Listen to me. Salvation is certainly free, but at the same time, it costs us everything. We are to die to ourselves as we become more and more changed into the likeness of Christ. My prayer is that you heed these words and make a full commitment to the good Lord Jesus and live according to what He teaches before it’s too late and you don’t have that opportunity anymore. You can do it. I know you can. Trust God. Ask Him to give you the strength and courage and He will. May the Lord bless you and use you for His glory.

apacalyps on December 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM

I am a Christian whether that bothers you or not. I really can’t even force myself to care one bit what you think of me. Calling me a whore won’t change that.

Though it is the height of arrogance to assume I’m bothering you by posting here.

But hey, calling people whores and being prideful, that’s all very Christian in your eyes.

How about you just leave me alone? I don’t care that you think I’m a whore. Jesus was prepared for death by one, even has he reject the pious, the ones who had him killed. From you, this must be some kind of complement.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I say the same thing. Why don’t you leave me alone? Stop torturing me with your lies! Believe me, I take no pleasure in having to rebuke you. It hurts me greatly. My heart literally aches. But, if you insist on decieving the followers of Christ by allowing darkness (lies) to mix with the light (truth) then you must know that somebody is going to challenge you on it. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (refute) them” (Ephesians 5:11). The Bible says we should discern and rebuke false brethren who are encouraging others to sin. If that bothers you, either become a Christian, or stop posing as one in this forum!

I’m talking about Connecticut right now, where gay marriage is, as of this very moment (along with Mass), legal. It will take zero work to allow them to keep their benefits.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Why are you talking about Connecticut? Were we discussing a federal ban? I’m not sure why another state is relevant to the discussion.

I guess my argument is that it’s a lot of work either way. This is still highly controversial, even in a state as blue as California.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I’m talking about Connecticut right now, where gay marriage is, as of this very moment (along with Mass), legal. It will take zero work to allow them to keep their benefits.

All that work is totally unnecessary.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM

I guess my argument is that it’s a lot of work either way. This is still highly controversial, even in a state as blue as California.

I know our government can be insanely ridiculous and stupid, but that’s beyond the pale.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I agree. If you want to lose faith in Democracy, watch C-SPAN.

But like I said, with zero words, zero laws, and zero effort, the people of CT can have equal benefits, right now. Because they already do, right now. All that work is totally unnecessary.

Honestly, which is more efficient and practical? To let them keep their benefits as it currently stands? Or to remove those benefits, convince some senator or representative to introduce an amendment to all of laws that affects have those bills sent to the appropriate comittees, have them each individualy debated, tweaked, and voted on in the house and Senate, before it is finally sent to the president for signing, so that eventually, some time in the future, they can get those benefits?

None. Just as I said, changing the word spouse. Why would there be a need to debate each specific benefit?

I know our government can be insanely ridiculous and stupid, but that’s beyond the pale.

… change the word spouse …

You overestimate the efficiency of our bureaucracy.

Actually, this is a very good idea. Not going through every criminal code, tax code, policy handbook, etc. ad nauseum, but passing a simple amendment to the existing civil union laws, stating that civil partners shall be considered in every way the equivalent of marriage partners. Maybe thirty words tops, a good clean compromise.

Social Security is a complete joke that will bankrupt itself soon enough anyway, and inheritance taxes shouldn’t be there in the first place. The government shouldn’t be able to tax the same thing multiple times.

This has nothing to do with the health of social security or the morality of taxation, so I’m not quite sure why you brought it up. It has to as whether or not social security and taxation affects you in the same manner as the couple down the street.

Yes, I do. All that would be required is to change the word spouse or to allow the word to have different meanings that are not associated specifically with marriage.

You overestimate the efficiency of our bureaucracy.

As of the moment, gay couples in CT have the same rights (or equal benefits if that’s the terminology you prefer to use)as straight couples. Honestly, which is more efficient and practical? To let them keep their benefits as it currently stands? Or to remove those benefits, convince some senator or representative to introduce an amendment to all of laws that affects have those bills sent to the appropriate comittees, have them each individualy debated, tweaked, and voted on in the house and Senate, before it is finally sent to the president for signing, so that eventually, some time in the future, they can get those benefits?

Usually changes to current law, even minor changes, is an agonizing process, especially on the federal level.

actually we have the separation of church and state in this country, so you go ahead and base your life around a fairy tale written 2000 years ago, but you have no right to legislate my life based on your religious ideals.

I think this is a simple cause and effect confusion. Religious people have faith and congregate with likeminded people at church (and other places). They don’t go to church devoid of any ideas and then get their head filled with church doctrine. You seem to assume the latter, thus your hate towards churches and organized religion. But the beliefs I hold are deeply personal and are not spoon-feed to me by whatever church I attend.
You are making the same mistake most non-religious people do by not understanding the origins and meaning of faith. That’s why religious people are always presented in the MSM as simple minded sheep following some higher power.

I know we aren’t talking about Jim Crow stuff here, but it’s obviously pretty easy to dismiss other people’s denied rights as “minor.”

I’ve always been under the impression that “rights” granted to married couples were actually benefits, so please pardon my different way of seeing this. I’m just not under the impression that a government must grant these to marriages in the first place.

These “rights” are so unattractive that many heterosexual couples decide it isn’t worth even getting the piece of paper.

Social Security is a complete joke that will bankrupt itself soon enough anyway, and inheritance taxes shouldn’t be there in the first place. The government shouldn’t be able to tax the same thing multiple times.

You actually think reworking inheritance law, social security law, and the FMLA will be shorter and easier than just granting marriage?

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Yes, I do. All that would be required is to change the word spouse or to allow the word to have different meanings that are not associated specifically with marriage.

It DOES NOT mean that I cannot advocate and even push legislation for values that I get from my faith. I have just as many rights as you do, not less because I happen to be a Christian.

sues on December 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

You have the right to vote based on your religious beliefs, but are unlikely to convince others outside your religion due solely to the doctrines of your church.

Practicing a faith to become closer to God and find strength and meaning in life is admirable. When faith is used to deny rights to others who don’t practice your faith then that raises another set of issues.

Fair enough, but we’re still talking about relatively minor issues.

I know we aren’t talking about Jim Crow stuff here, but it’s obviously pretty easy to dismiss other people’s denied rights as “minor.”

I would think it would be easier to add those benefits to a union than it would be to change marriage.

No, it’s not easier to change laws on the federal level than it is to grant marriage on the state level. The higher you go, the longer things take and the money and effort is required. You actually think reworking inheritance law, social security law, and the FMLA will be shorter and easier than just granting marriage?

Christians have also killed millions in the name of God, conquered and wiped out entire civilizations, discriminated against your fellow man based on bigoted religious views, etc. face it, you are on the wrong side of history as your side often is.

Noneya on December 5, 2008

Darwin has been responsible for the shedding of more innocent blood in the last 100 years than all the so called wars you claim were committed in the name of God! One and a half million babies are aborted each year in this nation and it is not done in the name of Jesus! That’s roughly 55 million innocent lives killed in this nation alone!
Here are a few other statistics for you:
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Some people try to understand history,, others like to read bumper stickers.

actually we have the separation of church and state in this country, so you go ahead and base your life around a fairy tale written 2000 years ago, but you have no right to legislate my life based on your religious ideals.

Of course I have that right as long as it (whatever law or “right” you are talking about) is in the constitution or the majority agrees with.

Your saying that I don’t is just as stupid as saying that you don’t have the right to legislate my life based on you secular immoral ideals.

Seperation of church and state simply means that the federal govenment does not have the right to establish an official US religion. It DOES NOT mean that I cannot advocate and even push legislation for values that I get from my faith. I have just as many rights as you do, not less because I happen to be a Christian.

The fact remains that you can’t claim that a “civil union” and “marriage” grant equal rights.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Fair enough, but we’re still talking about relatively minor issues. Considering the controversy stirred up over changing what the word marriage means to most in this country, if equality is the only aim, why not simply strive to change unions instead? I would think it would be easier to add those benefits to a union than it would be to change marriage.

The last one I understand, but the other three are better settled with a will than a marriage license anyway.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Not quite. If you’re married, you don’t have to pay taxes on inheritance or property transferred in a will. But you have to pony up the dough to Uncle Sam if you just have a civil union. And you can’t transfer social security benefits in a will at all.

The fact remains that you can’t claim that a “civil union” and “marriage” grant equal rights.

* Social Security survivor and pension benefits
* Inheritance rights
* End-of-life decisions (burial)
* Family leave under the federal “Family Medical Leave Act” (FMLA)

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 10:23 AM

The last one I understand, but the other three are better settled with a will than a marriage license anyway.

And even for the last one, the only condition that homosexual unions would not get is the 12 week time period off is when it comes to caring for their “spouse” with a serious health condition. All the others would still apply with or without a marriage.

So then the whole thing comes down to either the word marriage or the ability to take off 12 weeks unpaid from a job in order to care for a spouse.