186 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

It is not irrelevent because it explains that there are really no such thing as needs in the world even if it keeps you alive.

That's the definition of the word need. I won't pursue this further until you recognise the authority of the dictionary on wording issues.

[Serra]

Your definition doesn't prove shit. In my dictionary right here in my hands the definition for need is 'to WANT'. So what do you say to that? If you decipher your long definition it equals out to mean the same thing. The synonym to need is want even right in the Thesaurus if you know what that is.

[Alakhriveion]

In my dictionary right here in my hands the definition for need is 'to WANT'. So what do you say to that?

Publication, please? Oxford call it that which is physically and psycologically neccesary, I think that is the most applicable meaning.

Your definition doesn't prove shit.

WATCH IT.

[arunma]

Your definition doesn't prove shit. In my dictionary right here in my hands the definition for need is 'to WANT'. So what do you say to that? If you decipher your long definition it equals out to mean the same thing. The synonym to need is want even right in the Thesaurus if you know what that is.

Actually, I'm sure he does have a definition for shit. If you're going to start making up definitions, then why not just throw out English and speak in grunts? Also, stop getting mad at Alak just because he's smart. If you poke him too many times, he'll explode.

It doesn't dilute anything, more people come to the Christmas service than any other time of the year and it does gain more converts than banning other people from celebrating because then you completely close the door.

It gains converts? I already posted this once today, but here goes again.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." (Matthew 23:15)

Christianity isn't about "gaining converts." It's about gaining true followers of Christ.

Oh, you don't get it, do you? There are more people I see around the Christian faith worshipping what the Bible says and doing whatever it tells you to do.

I guess I don't get it. How are we worshiping the Bible by doing what God says? If you love Christ, you'll follow his commandments. What would you rather we do? Meditate over Buddha and burn incense while channeling cosmic energy to increase karma? Will that get us to worship God instead of the Bible?

Economics has everything to do with Christmas as well as religion because the church would make even less money if Christmas was not the way it were right now and it would collapse.

There's no such physical institution as "the church." The church is the body of all believers throughout the world. Besides, my church isn't making any money off Christmas. All our financial needs are supplied by God.

But if you want to escape economics then you might as well sell all of your possesions and go live out in the woods somewhere naked because that is as far as you are going to get without it.

Jesus would approve.

And I am a Christian and by calling it heresy when I say the Bible is an idol further proves my point.

Whether heresy is involved is questionable, because I'm not fully aware of your beliefs. Do you even believe in the Bible?

Do you think that just because you read the Bible a few times you have the right to condemn whoever you please?

It sounds like that's what you did, by accusing us of idolatry.

The leaders of the church don't memorize the Bible front to back because Christianity is supposed to be left to your interpertation so there is no set way to go about things.

What leaders? Do you mean God?

But the one most important thing is to accept everyone into the faith and your comment about all non-Christians should not be allowed to celebrate Christmas goes directly against that.

We Christians are offended when non-believers try to recieve communion (why they do this is beyond me). I'm against non-believers celebrating Christmas for the same reasons. But that's not the point. I'm talking about how Christians should celebrate Christmas. And if you're a Christian, you fall under that category.

I know this isn't my fight, but I have to: Celebrating Christmas without being a Christain dilutes your spirituality without gaining converts, so it works to the opposite effect.

Hey, I knew you'd understand!

[Goose]

Oh yes, before I forget, Japan and Russia are part of Asia and both celebrate Christmas and make up a very large chunk of Asia just so you are aware.

I just thought I would point out that Russia is a major part of Europe, not Asia.

[Alakhriveion]

Meditate over Buddha and burn incense while channeling cosmic energy to increase karma? Will that get us to worship God instead of the Bible?

Beating a South America drum to a Tibetan chant for an African god- because new-age spirituality lets you be comfortable AND pretentious.

[Serra]

I don't believe every word of the Bible as fact as you do which is not worshipping God or Jesus but the people that wrote the Bible 40 or 50 years after Jesus died. And I didn't make up any definition it is right here in this dictionary, Webster's Dictionary of the American Language, that the very first definition for need is to want. You say economics has nothing to do with needs or wants when it is the only thing where they are truly applied and we learned the very first day that needs do not exist in the economy, only wants and things you want more than others. Maybe you should try learning something instead of saying I don't know anything since you don't seem to understand economics, either of you. And you can't go around speaking for all Christians, arunma, when I am a Christian myself and know that during communion, every single time it is served, they welcome everyone even if you AREN"T Christian. But by your standards we should all go back to the days of the crusades or the Inquisition to bar everyone who does not agree at the moment from ever getting to that point. Jesus tells us to go out and become fishers of men, not sit on our asses complaining about Santa Claus.

I know exactly what commandments Jesus left for us, Love your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Disagreeing with what the Bible says doesn't contradict either of them. The Bible was written about 2000 years ago, why does that matter so much? What is God telling us today? Nobody knows because they are all to fixated on the Bible instead of God himself.

[arunma]

Jesus tells us to go out and become fishers of men, not sit on our asses complaining about Santa Claus.

What if I do both?

[NightStar]

Just a quick question Serra and then I'll butt out since I don't really know what's going on. Are you a Catholic? I ask because you mentioned communion and I know you have a large family (which isn't always an ACURATE way to tell if someone is Catholic, but we usually tend to have big families).

[arunma]

Protestants have communion too. In fact, Catholics are the ones who (for very good reasons) don't allow nonbelievers to recieve communion.

[NightStar]

Yes I know. I am a Catholic and I was just asking because I know that some Protestant churches also have "communion". I was just being curious.

[Serra]

I don't believe they are very good reasons because that doesn't make them feel very welcome if you shut the door in their faces and it makes us look stuck up. And I happen to be Methodist and have been one all my life. And you can do either one, sure, but fighting against Santa Claus is rather pointless considering how the idea of Santa is more good than evil as you try to make people believe. I believe that if the church supports him than there must be some good in the idea, and I know there is good there I just don't know how to explain it to you any better.

[arunma]

The Jewish high priests of Jesus' day also looked "good" on the outside, you know.

[Alakhriveion]

You say economics has nothing to do with needs or wants when it is the only thing where they are truly applied and we learned the very first day that needs do not exist in the economy, only wants and things you want more than others.

Are you sure about this? I know a bit about economics, and it has little or nothing to do with linguistics.

[NightStar]

It's not that we Catholics are sticking our noses up at other branches of Christians or even nonbelievers, it is that we believe that communion is a very sacred sacrament where it is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ himself. Others who only see the bread and wine as a symbol should not be allowed to take communion in a Catholic church because it is a pillar of our church. That's a pretty good reason in my book. But that is not what this thread is for and so I won't mention it again.

[Goose]

I"ve studied economics for four years now. Economics is the process of dividing resources to the people. It is about who gets what and why they get that. It is not the study of needs and wants.

Also

A few years back I did a study in class of what was a need and what was a want. The results are as follows.

A need is a basic necessecity that humans need in order to stay alive. eg Food and water.

A want is something that is not necessary that a human desires. A PC or a TV

Shoes are a want, as you can walk with bare feet.

Water is a need, as you need to drink it in order to stay alive.

Oxygen is a need.

Helium to make your voice go high is a want.

Methane is something that nobody needs or wants.

A need is not a want, I've studied this for years.

[Serra]

Economics Lesson 1 Day 1: Humans have unlimited wants but there are a scarce amount of resources available so you must choose which is what it is all about.

Lesson 2: There are no needs in the world only wants and that will be the hardest thing for people to accept because they are too used to the idea of needs.

Maybe you should go back over you 'economics' since you missed some real key points there. And Economics has a lot of new terms involved since it is a completely different way of looking at the world.

As for the Pharisees followed every bit of what the Bible said to the letter which is sorta what you are doing now, so I fail to see your point here.

[Alakhriveion]

Economics Lesson 1 Day 1: Humans have unlimited wants but there are a scarce amount of resources available so you must choose which is what it is all about.

Lesson 2: There are no needs in the world only wants and that will be the hardest thing for people to accept because they are too used to the idea of needs.

Maybe you should go back over you 'economics' since you missed some real key points there. And Economics has a lot of new terms involved since it is a completely different way of looking at the world.

That's not economics. Economics is math, what you have there is philosophy- and flimsy philosophy, at that.

[Serra]

Economics is social science, or trying to explain why people make the choices they do out of the things that can all satisfy their wants because they cannot have it all. Economics is not 'math' you are thinking of statistics which is a completely different subject. You obviously have no idea about economics at all.

[Selena]

....Could you please not act so arrogant?

[Goose]

Economics is math based. Its just the division of resources. Your speaking to somebody who wrote essays on this subject, somebody who seriously considered being an economist as a career. What you have there is really (As Alek Stated) Philosophy.

By the way, who taught you this stuff? Where did you go to school?

[Alakhriveion]

Economics is social science, or trying to explain why people make the choices they do out of the things that can all satisfy their wants because they cannot have it all. Economics is not 'math' you are thinking of statistics which is a completely different subject. You obviously have no idea about economics at all.

No. The "Social Science" you're refering to now is called, predictably, sociology. Economics is a form of mathematics. Now, both sociology and economics originate with Marx, so I understand the mistake, but nothing you've raise so far is economics.

[Goose]

Indeed it is Socialology which is a study of how society acts as a whole, where as phsycology is a study of the individual.

[arunma]

As for the Pharisees followed every bit of what the Bible said to the letter which is sorta what you are doing now, so I fail to see your point here.

No, you've missed the point completely. The point was that the Pharisees didn't follow every bit of the Torah, but that they expected others to follow it anyway.

Come on Serra. The points in my other thread notwithstanding, you've been a Christian your whole life. You know all this. Methodists are a fine denomination. Don't they teach you about this in church?

Economics is social science, or trying to explain why people make the choices they do out of the things that can all satisfy their wants because they cannot have it all. Economics is not 'math' you are thinking of statistics which is a completely different subject. You obviously have no idea about economics at all.

OK, first of all, economics is math. I'm a third year math major, so I know a thing or two about this.

Secondly, you need to stop being so arrogant. Alak already wants to kick you out of here (at least I'm guessing he does), and if you keep insulting him, I'm going to let him have his way with you. Trust me, I don't want to do this. I'd much rather keep you here to debate these issues with us. But we have rules here, and if I don't enforce them, I'm going to get in trouble.

[Serra]

I did not miss the point, the pharisees were seen as the high priests of the temple the study the Bible over and over again so they could condemn the world with it which people are doing a lot of today. They did not try to truly learn what God was all about because they were to busy reading and telling everyone what they were doing wrong. That is why Jesus told them that whoever is free of sin shall cast the first stone which shook the pharisees because they knew every inch of the Bible and were following it exactly how they believed it was supposed to be followed. They were merely just confused which is why God sent Jesus to try and show them down the correct path on what the Bible truly meant. Now, the one's that really didn't follow the Torah were the Sadgesies (sp?) who were merely out there trying to get on the Romans good side so they wouldn't be killed. They went against the Bible so they could get ahead in life but ended up being worse off than the Pharisees.

[Alakhriveion]

I did not miss the point, the pharisees were seen as the high priests of the temple the study the Bible over and over again so they could condemn the world with it which people are doing a lot of today.

Well, they were professional scholars. I don't know about condemnation being their goal, they were actually responsible for a lot of reforms.

[arunma]

Serra, actually the Pharisees were considered to be champions of human justice and equality in their time. The Pharisees eventually became modern rabbinical Judaism. And you can still see their ethic of human justice in modern day Jews (yes, even Alak, despite that he reacts violently with water).

Jesus didn't condemn all Pharisees. Chances are that he and most of the disciples were Pharisees too. He only condemned the religious leaders and scribes of his day, who abused Pharasaic Judaism.

Never did Jesus say that you shouldn't study the Bible. He even said that the Torah and the Prophets will never disappear until all things are fulfilled. Paul the apostle says that "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

As for the Saducees, I'm not sure why you brought them up. But they were the more atheistic variety of Jews. They believed in God, but not in the afterlife. As you said, they were the ones (that is, the priests) who handed Jesus over to the Romans. Just goes to show you what happens when you stop reading your Bible.

[Serra]

Actually, this was all taught to me by a certain person who has their doctorate in theology which shows you have more work to do. You are also putting words into my mouth since I never said Jesus condemned anyone, the pharisees were the ones doing the condemning, Jesus was trying to teach them the way of God. The 2 groups Jesus was fighting the most during the time he was around were the Pharisees, who were top priority, and the saducees who were helping the Romans take out some of the Jews. Jesus was never sent to condemn the world but to bring it new life which he successfully did, so maybe you should try a bit more learning there.

[Alakhriveion]

Actually, this was all taught to me by a certain person who has their doctorate in theology which shows you have more work to do.

That doesn't make their statements more valid. I promise those are not things which could be legitimately published.

Jesus was never sent to condemn the world but to bring it new life which he successfully did, so maybe you should try a bit more learning there.

Please try not to be so hostile.