End of the World (Could not resist)

Originally posted by FMF
So all Brothers share the same beliefs and are united in worship. If your leadership - fallible as you concede it is - proposed something [having not permitted vigorous debate about it] that all Brothers did not believe in, would all the Brothers leave?

yes we share the same beliefs and are united in worship. I dont think the leadership (we claim Christ as our leader) the governing body are merely considered servants would do that, for if anyone proposed something that was clearly unscriptural, they would be subject to scrutiny and if they persisted against the majority, removed. You must understand that there are certain qualifications for those that desire to be an overseer, which, if they re not fulfilling, they will be removed, for it is a position of responsibility to look after the congregation of God. Elders are removed all the time if they do not fulfil those responsibilities to the best of their ability. If you take a look at those qualifications, you will see that their are certain qualities that would prohibit going against scriptural reasoning , for example being self willed or belligerent.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol..Who ever told you that?

Which bit?

JW doctrine is set by the Governing Body?

They're unelected?

They're all men?

Or that the 'sheeple' are told not to question doctrine?

Originally posted by galveston75
If one is looking for and expecting perfection the JW Brothers and Sisters, that will never happen.

Where did I say I was looking for or expecting perfection? I am just curious about how there can be no vigorous debate within the organisation? Everybody believes the same things?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...if anyone proposed something that was clearly unscriptural, they would be subject to scrutiny and if they persisted against the majority, removed.

So there is debate, then? And dissenters or deviants would be removed... how? By a vote?

Originally posted by FMF
Where did I say I was looking for or expecting perfection? I am just curious about how there can be no vigorous debate within the organisation? Everybody believes the same things?

what is there to debate? our major issues are all resolved.

Originally posted by FMF
So there is debate, then? And dissenters or deviants would be removed... how? By a vote?

they would simply be removed from the decision making process. for they no longer qualify, for insisting on establishing their own ideas, they are disqualified from serving, an elder must be yielding, it is a beautiful quality, full of strength.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is there to debate? our major issues are all resolved.

You mentioned 'scrutiny' and a 'decision'. How else can this occur if not by way of some degree of debate? You mentioned something about "if they persisted against the majority". If there is a measurement of what a "majority" think and what the remaining "minority" think, then there is clearly something that we can call 'debate' going on. Yes?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they would simply be removed from the decision making process.

Well, surely there is some kind of debate about whether or not to remove them? Surely they get to state their case and then a decision is made. That is debate, surely?

Originally posted by FMF
You mentioned 'scrutiny' and a 'decision'. How else can this occur if not by way of some degree of debate? You mentioned something about "if they persisted against the majority". If there is a measurement of what a "majority" think and what the remaining "majority" think, then there is clearly something that we can call 'debate' going on. Yes?

yes for example, say a brother wishes to qualify for a position of oversight and someone recommends him, his qualifications or ability to serve will be looked at, the scriptural qualifications are clearly laid out, that takes a certain degree of scrutiny to see if he meets the mark, but its not a debate, is it, its merely a discussion of his ability to meet the qualifications.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, surely there is some kind of debate about whether or not to remove them? Surely they get to state their case and then a decision is made. That is debate, surely?

no its a discussion, debate is different, its trying to establish a certain criteria or perspective, our criteria has already been established, scripturally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its a discussion, debate is different, its trying to establish a certain criteria or perspective, our criteria has already been established, scripturally.

You are describing 'debate', robbie. And you're denying that you're describing 'debate'. If you have misspoken, just say so. Don't hide behind sophistry.

Originally posted by FMF
You are describing 'debate', robbie. And you're denying that you're describing 'debate'. If you have misspoken, just say so. Don't hide behind sophistry.

do you have discussions with your partner FMF on how to decorate your home, or do you have debate?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...but its not a debate, is it, its merely a discussion of his ability to meet the qualifications.

Some may oppose his promotion and some my support it. This is debate, robbie. Don't talk to fellow posters as if they are fools.

Originally posted by FMF
Some may oppose his promotion and some my support it. This is debate, robbie. Don't talk to fellow posters as if they are fools.

please put your cynicism aside, if you think its debate FMF, then its debate. See how yielding i can be.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you have discussions with your partner FMF on how to decorate your home, or do you have debate?

If there is a 'for' or 'against' decision to be made then it is a debate. You have described the debates that occur within your organisation and now you are trying to say there is no debate.