-A bank where extra currency (’neopoints’) could be stored, in an interest-gathering account.
-A mock stock market, where stocks in various (fictional) companies can be bought and sold.
-Various ways to give to charity.
-And, although not mentioned by clever_dude, the possibility to create your own shop, and sell (or more properly, resell, since there’s no way for an individual user to produce new items) items to other users. This feature alone could be a halfway decent Econ 101 course for the grade school set.

Now, the site isn’t without its problems; it is, at its heart, one giant commercial for the large (and ever increasing) amount of related Neopets merchandise. But, even that could potentially be a lesson: the cost of getting something for ‘free’ is usually allowing yourself to be subjected to advertisements (and hopefully, resisting the urge to buy everything you see).

As for the $3000 purse issue, while I can think of plenty of other things ‘I’ would rather do with that amount of available money (some rather tempting Vanguard funds come to mind), trying to dictate what others should and shouldn’t be buying seems like a fruitless task, to say nothing of making you very unpopular at parties.

Most reasoned adults don’t need to resort to ad hominem attacks unless their position is so weak they have no other option(s).

Just for the record, I have no affiliation and don’t fully agree with “prosperity gospel” teachings or any specific organized religious doctrine. I most closely lean toward Presbyterian doctrine, if that even matters.

My point was that the Bible does seem to waiver on numerous issues and many people misinterpret, misapply, take out of context or hold fast and true to the “letter of the law” rather than the “spirit of the law.”

In any case, as materialistic and ridiculous as I might think it is, that handbag pays the salary of the pattern cutter or bag seamstress who get paid $10 an hour and live in Manhattan with 3 other girls in a loft. I knew one of those girls when I lived there. So, if you think about it that way, you are helping girls who dream of making it big in fashion. And that’s not all bad!!

http://www.SavvySingleChristian.blogspot.com

There are no mistakes in the KJV Bible. I’ll give you one thousand dollars if you can prove one.

http://www.thywordistrue.com

Also I just love how the main critics of the $3K handbag, as Sarah writes, are men. Men waste money on different things than women; but boy oh boy, do they waste money. Expensive car? What a waste. Much more than $3K worth of waste, too. Wreaks of sexism.

Also I just love how the main critics of the $3K handbag, as Sarah writes, are men. Men waste money or different things than women; but boy oh boy, do they waste money. Expensive car? What a waste. Much more than $3K worth of waste, too. Wreaks of sexism.

The Old Testament laws were written for the Jews. In the New Testament Jesus came to overcome the Law.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Please check out….
http://www.thywordistrue.com/

As far as quoting the Bible goes, I think that it should not be something you read literally. For example: consumed shrimp, shellfish, or bacon lately? Played football? Come into contact with a woman on her period? These are all things, according to Leviticus, that you should not be doing. Follow one, follow them all.

Having your financial house in order and earning plenty of money to afford the finer things in life is not a sin. In fact, every one of those passages supports this assertion.
“The wise have wealth and luxury, but fools spend whatever they get.” Proverbs 21:20

If one tithes, gives to the needy, stays out of debt, increases their holdings with interest and protects themselves and their family from financial disaster, then stewardship is strong. Again, all of those passages support this assertion. “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.” Proverbs 10:2-5

Foregoing the simple pleasures of owning a few nice things does not make one a saint, nor does owning a few nice things make someone a sinner. Is it not better to increase wealth to better be able to affect more lives? It would be more of a sin not to increase personal wealth if you are inclined and have such abilities. Squandering opporunity (sloth) is one of the 7 deadly sins. If you are able to earn $1,000,000 a year, should you opt to make less in an effort to seem more rightous? Perhaps you think that you should give away most of that $1,000,000 a year and live on as little as possible. That would be very short thinking, for if you have talent or opportunity to grow that money into greater amounts you will end up helping many more people than if you just give it away. Proverbs 28: 8 “He who augments his wealth by interest and increase gathers it for him who is kind to the poor.”

“A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.” Proverbs 10:2-5

“The wise have wealth and luxury, but fools spend whatever they get.” Proverbs 21:20

If the focus is soley to obtain those nice things at the cost of stewardship, therein lies the problem. Remember, money is not the root of all evil…The love of money is the root of all evil.

I personally find that the more I give the more I receive…spiritually and monetarily!

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Oh btw thanks for the link to my article on Wise Bread :)

If you are talking about stewardship, then I agree. Although, having your financial house in order and earning plenty of money to afford the finer things in life is not a sin.

If one tithes, gives to the needy, stays out of debt, increases their holdings with interest and protects themselves and their family from financial disaster, then stewardship is strong.

Foregoing the simple pleasures of owning a few nice things does not make one a saint, nor does owning a few nice things make someone a sinner.

Now, if the focus is soley to obtain those nice things at the cost of stewardship, therein lies the problem. Remember, money is not the root of all evil…The love of money is the root of all evil.

Believe it or not, one day we will all be held acountable for how we spent our money.

Dangerous, maybe. But certainly not expensive if it’s your primary vehicle.

As for whether I would purchase a $3000 handbag, the answer is no: because a $3000 handbag would not make me happy. I would, however, gladly spend $3000 on a spotting scope so I could catch wading birds and other wildlife. It’s just as frivolous and just as selfish, and probably even more useless than a handbag, because I can only go birdwatching about once a month.

I don’t see a problem with driving a $60,000 corvette or two $20,000 bikes (not at the same time of course) if your income supports your choice. Dave Ramsey touts not having motorized vehicles equalling more than 50% of your income. If you have a $60,000 corvette and this is your only motorized vehicle, then as long as you make at least $120,000 per year, you fall within that rule of thumb. If you have a $60,000 corvette and two bikes at $20,000 each, then your income should be $200,000 per year.

What I don’t agree with is making payments on a $60,000 corvette or two $20,000 bikes. My personal belief and part of my frugality takes its form in paying cash for everything, except houses. I view it as very frugal to drive a car into the ground while saving up for something you really want…like the $60,000 corvette, although you may not want to spend the $60,000 on a new corvette and instead opt for a 2-3 year old corvette to reduce the hit on depreciation.