Do you have any alternative suggestions for people who are opposed to legal prosecution, under religious objections?
I am an Anabaptist, and we are strongly against legal proceedings outside of extreme circumstance.
I am an Anabaptist, and we are strongly against legal proceedings outside of extreme circumstance.
It's "legally binding", yes... but so is the initial contract.
> 7. In seeking to achieve a settlement, the Christian is committed to going the second mile. The Christian should support various alternatives to litigation such as arbitration and meditation.
http://www.anabaptistwiki.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_Use_of...
For anyone else reading, the link might explain some of the philosophy.
However, when a corporation as large as PayPal blatantly ignores a significant financial claim from a singular individual rendering the individual helpless, it seems a bit extreme.
In this case you can use the system the Corporation set up to suppress your ability to fight back against them.
However, it would be nice if there is a means to recoup losses outside of a court system, whether it be through a system like the BBB, or similar.
> recoup losses outside of a court system
So your religion discourages going to court (because of money, and not of the court itself) and you are trying to find a way around that? Seems like you have to re-evaluate why you are in this faith in the first place.
See: sabbath elevators
Thank you for the kind reply. I certainly understand why you may be confused, and I appreciate that you did not ask in a nefarious manner. (Honestly, I regret bringing this up given how negatively people have already responded, but there isn't a means to delete this thread. Lesson learned. I'm just relieved I used a throwaway account.)
Anyway
---
Court System:
I am furious with company. I demand money from company and take them to court. If they do not appear in court, they may face coercion from the police. They very well may be hurt or killed in that process. If they still do not show, they will face jail time. In the event that they do show up to court, there are massive court fees on each side. The plaintiff demands more than what they are owed. The court process puts great emotional burden and financial strain on both parties. Both parties are unlikely to ever work together again, under any circumstance. Everything that is said in court is made public record, and can be used against either part in future cases. Both parties risk severe communal damage as a result of the case. "Did you hear that company lost? They must be criminals!" "Did you hear so-and-so won that legal case? He must be going on vacation with his winnings! He still owes me $300!" Etc. Additional parties are incentivized to "go after" the company for their own recompense, justified or otherwise.
Recoup losses:
I am unhappy with company. I approach the owner, the business (or in this case, some 3rd party, like the BBB) in a private setting. I inform them of my grievances. I ask them for the amount owed. If they do not comply, the police do not become involved. There is no chance for coercion, violence, or death. There is no chance of jail time. There are no massive fees. The amount I request is the amount I feel I am owed - it does not include court fees or lawyer-related payments. There may be minor embarrassment on each side, but the embarrassment is shared, and more crucially, is not made a public spectacle. The interaction is not recorded, or, if it is, is not easily remembered. Neither party will face long-term or devastating public disgrace as a result of the outcome. There is no incentive for additional parties to seek payment. I very well may work with the party in the future. (I have a specific ISP in mind, for example.)
---
I am, of course, leaving out a lot of scriptural elements as well, but I have been accused of "preaching" on previous occasions, so I will save my breath on that matter. Besides, given how horribly vicious people have been simply by mentioning a denomination, I would not wish to give them more coals to chew.
It is a hard thing to put to words, but the core difference is this: It is not merely getting the money owed to me that is important, but instead doing so in a way which does not harm the community in the process. Being given what I am owed is nice, but it would be better for me to receive nothing, than to do so in a way which would harm them in the process. I have no qualm holding my hand out and asking, but it is up to them to do the right thing.
I suspect that some of my Eastern brothers and sisters will know what I am talking about when I say: collectivism (culture not politics) trumps individualism. The body of Christ is made up of people not person ; I'm not sure how else to express it.
Hopefully that made some sort of sense.
Hopefully I don't come off as rude, but this seems like a very privileged position. I don't know OP's financial situation, but 1.2k is a lot of money to a lot of people. What should OP do if they were relying on this money to feed themselves, or their spouse/children?
Not everyone has 1.2k to throw away because they don't want to harm the person/company that stole it from them.
Your method probably works in situations where the issue was a genuine accident, and the company would right the wrong if they knew about it. But it seems, to me, to fall apart if we assume any actor in a situation is malicious, as you effectively give the thief the power to say "No" and then get away with their theft.
That is exactly what arbitration is. It is an alternative means of dispute resolution from regular courts.
So if you insist applying 2 millenia old wisdoms to your everyday life, consider adding some Matthew 7:12 as well and sue them if they would have sued you in the same situation.
The obvious answer is to either avoid getting in the situation or to suck it up and account for getting ripped off as the price of learning. Vet your choices more carefully, use prepay, avoid systems where you don’t control the direct debiting of your accounts.
More generally, ask the question of your social group who will have specific knowledge and strategies that fit in with the rest of your social rules. Asking here seems like you would get poor advice because we don’t have much motivation to have learnt appropriate hacks for your issue, and mostly will have little experience of your issue.
Makes total sense; I don't know why you'd question it!
That seems a bit reductive. From my understanding, it's not so much by the wrong people but rather without deliberate, conscious choice. Chiefly, anabaptists reject the notion of infant baptisms because an infant can't meaningfully repent and freely proclaim their belief in Christ. Which, as far as religion goes, seems like a reasonable position.
I didn’t know this is what set anabaptists aside.
A lot of distinctive Anabaptist beliefs have gotten mainstreamed over the centuries, and what they were once best known for is now much more widely practiced. But the name sticks for historical reasons and the group still exists. You can read a summary of beliefs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleitheim_Confession In the modern mileu, I would say what is most unusual and distinctive about them is pacifism.
Turn the other cheek, sure, but even Paul appealed to Caesar.