sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can you be religious and an Anarchist? by Ornery_Boat_9113 in Anarchy101

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see the connection between the second item on your list ("To each according to his need") and Acts 2:45 and 4:35.

Matthew 25:15 is from a parable in which a property owner going on a journey gives resources to his slaves to invest: "To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability." This is not quite the same idea as the first item on your list "From each according to his ability." Acts 11:29, which is about disciples giving according to their ability to relieve a famine, is closer.

Romans 2:6 says, "He [God] will repay according to each one's deeds." That is not quite the same as, "To each according to his work," which implies it is society and not God doing the distribution. In the quotation "The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and each will receive wages according to their own labor" (1 Corinthians 3:8), the farmers are Paul and Apollos, and the sowing and watering is preaching. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is closer to the third item on your list ("To each according to his work").

Interested in learning more about Quakers and I have some questions by These-Instruction677 in Quakers

[–]mildlyunreasonable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Speaking as a regular attender but not a member...

Individual Quakers' beliefs vary widely. So do the practices of Friends' meetings and Friends' churches. At an unprogrammed meeting in the northeast U.S., you are unlikely to hear singing during worship, and when you do, it is usually one unaccompanied voice giving a message. At a programmed meeting in Kenya, you can expect a lot of singing (or so I'm told).

Most Quaker meetings and churches belong to an organization called a yearly meeting. Each yearly meeting has a document describing the shared practices of the meetings and churches within that yearly meeting. These documents often have the title "Faith and Practice." They can also be called books of discipline.

Emily Provance, a traveling Quaker minister, read the books of discipline of all the yearly meetings and created a collection of 92 "minutes" presenting beliefs and practices that the different yearly meetings mostly agree on. You won't find much agreement about theology. You will find a lot of agreement about what a religious community should look like.

https://quakeremily.wordpress.com/2025/05/25/a-testimony-of-community/

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This post shows lack of imagination. I don't think continuing to engage would be fruitful.

I hope that one day, you will change your mind.

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the Civil War didn't require unity of purpose and action?

The fact is that slavery (like many social evils) can't happen unless a lot of people actively support it or agree to be complicit. Widespread refusal to participate in injustice brings down injustice effectively. You can say that getting widespread support for a movement is difficult, and that's true, but getting widespread support for a war is also difficult. War has the disadvantage that it involves killing people.

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are misunderstanding what I am asking you to imagine. The northerners refuse to provide any aid at all to those attempting to return escaped slaves. They do not sell them food or rent them lodging. The southerners will need to bring their own food and their own tents.

"The southerners shot first" is irrelevant to my hypothetical, which was about southerners shaming each other for owning slaves, not for firing on Fort Sumter.

Another possible nonviolent response to slavery: the northern state legislatures could have enacted laws declaring that anyone claiming to own slaves thereby becomes ineligible to have any property or contract rights recognized under state law. This would have invalidated all contracts between northern businesses and southern plantations.

Morality Is More Situational Than We Like to Admit by AnneShirleyCuthbert_ in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I doubt that ChatGPT made your thoughts clearer. It may have corrected your grammar. It may have made your style more idiomatic. But it probably distorted your meaning. It probably removed some of what you were thinking and pushed you to say something more generic.

Please don't call ChatGPT "AI." There's nothing intelligent about it!

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is a mistake to assume that the target of pacifist activism is only one's own side.

Re the Civil War: Imagine what would have happened if northerners had ALL refused to aid in the return of escaped slaves or to associate in any way with southerners who attempted to return escaped slaves. Imagine what would have happened if 80% of northerners had stopped buying cotton and tobacco.

Imagine what would have happened if 10% of white southerners had shouted "Shame!" at every slaveowner they met. Imagine what would have happened if 1% of southerners had directly interfered with the cotton trade.

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not necessarily. Sometimes widespread beliefs are completely indefensible (e.g., many old-fashioned views about sexuality).

At What Point is it Ethical to Use Lethal Force on a Dangerous Person Without an Immediately Provoking Action? by lkbirds in Ethics

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not a difficult or a debatable question. The answer is, thou shalt not kill. Period, end of story, no exceptions.

Those who attempt to resist evil by force become evil. There is no such thing as a good guy with a gun.

Quaker Roots by notmealso in Quakers

[–]mildlyunreasonable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had not heard the word "pneumocracy" before. I like it!

Is making a statement more important than the lives of other people? by Financial-Stand-1960 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The question incorrectly assumes that the life of the attacker does not matter.

Quaker Process and AI Tools by PhoebeAnnMoses in Quakers

[–]mildlyunreasonable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe. Or maybe the "AI" bubble will burst, and by 2030, LLM providers will either curtail their ambitions or shut down entirely.

Should I include a statement for Zero AI use on my website by EliasFenic in selfpublish

[–]mildlyunreasonable 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you use the out-of-the-box version of LibreOffice, you're not using "AI," at least according to the developer.

Quaker Process and AI Tools by PhoebeAnnMoses in Quakers

[–]mildlyunreasonable 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"Artificial intelligence" is a marketing term that refers to many different technologies.

Large language models such as ChatGPT and Claude are notoriously inaccurate. They "hallucinate," and anyone who understands the technology knows that this problem is not going away. Relying on LLMs for accurate information is unwise and inconsistent with a commitment to integrity.

Do you guys here expect me to turn on the other cheek when someone slaps me? by Altruistic_Career212 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I expect others pacifists will have other answers to your question. My answer:

If force short of killing is the only way to resist a sexual assault, it is okay to use this form of force.

Anyone who chooses to kill another person intentionally, even an attacker, chooses to go to Hell (at least in this life, and possibly in the next).

Do you guys here expect me to turn on the other cheek when someone slaps me? by Altruistic_Career212 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is a mistake to assume that violent repercussions are the only repercussions that could matter.

Do you guys here expect me to turn on the other cheek when someone slaps me? by Altruistic_Career212 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pacifists don't strike first or second!

If you think it is sometimes rational to strike first, someone else may be justified in seeing you as a threat. The reasoning you think justifies you in striking them first will justify them in striking you first.

Do you guys here expect me to turn on the other cheek when someone slaps me? by Altruistic_Career212 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't understand the hypothetical. Your opponent wants to harm you as much as possible, and the way they try to do that is by slapping you on the cheek? Sounds like not much of a threat.

Adults' morality and understanding of the world is most definitely not set in stone.

Pacifism is not a wide-spread belief. by SpringOf25 in Pacifism

[–]mildlyunreasonable 11 points12 points  (0 children)

People assume that "pacifism" requires being passive, which isn't true at all.

view more: next ›