Originally posted by FMFNo i don't think it of necessity needs to be exclusively a group exercise, one can form a consensus in ones own mind after deliberation and consideration of various factors and elements. Nothing has stopped me from endorsing it, I am simply in a state of deliberation.
Isn't a "consensus" formed by a group? Hasn't the JW organisation's leadership stated its consensus regarding "the generation that was alive in 1914" in its publications? What is stopping you from endorsing it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am thinking of the actual definition of "consensus" - not your use of it which is incorrect. A "consensus" ~ by definition ~ cannot be formed "in ones own mind after deliberation". It is an agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
No i don't think it of necessity needs to be exclusively a group exercise, one can form a consensus in ones own mind after deliberation and consideration of various factors and elements. Nothing has stopped me from endorsing it, I am simply in a state of deliberation.
Could your current "state of deliberation" result in you not endorsing the JW organisation leadership's stated consensus regarding "the generation that was alive in 1914" as laid out in its publications?
Originally posted by FMFI think its use is fine, after all its my mind and the publications of Jehovahs witnesses that are forming said consensus. Yes its entirely possible I could reject the idea.
I am thinking of the actual definition of "consensus" - not your use of it which is incorrect. A "consensus" ~ by definition ~ cannot be formed "in ones own mind after deliberation". It is an agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
Could your current "state of deliberation" result in you[b] not endorsing the JW organisation le ...[text shortened]... ted consensus regarding "the generation that was alive in 1914" as laid out in its publications?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou seem to be advocating a kind of dichotomy, either acceptance or rejection. There are other scenarios, for example that one neither accepts or rejects and simply maintains a state of deliberation until matters become clear in ones own mind. There is no necessity to fall into a dichotomy. Why you insist on attempting to lead people into this kind of polarised way of thinking is known only to you. Why do you?
You said that it's entirely possible that you could reject the idea. If you do reject it, would it be the first time you had decided to reject a JW belief after deliberation?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you ever conducted this kind of deliberation you mention, and ~ after matters became clear in your own mind ~ decided to reject a JW belief ?
There are other scenarios, for example that one neither accepts or rejects and simply maintains a state of deliberation until matters become clear in ones own mind.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAgain this ignores the possibility that one can simply neither accept or reject a premise and simply remain in a state of deliberation. I have as yet not rejected outright any of the teachings of Jehovahs Witnesses as they relate to understanding of the Bible.
Have you ever conducted this kind of deliberation you mention, and ~ after matters became clear in your own mind ~ decided to reject a JW belief ?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAside from its teaching on the link between "the generation that was alive in 1914" and the “great tribulation”, are there any other JW teachings that you have chosen to neither accept or reject after deliberation?
Again this ignores the possibility that one can simply neither accept or reject a premise and simply remain in a state of deliberation. I have as yet not rejected outright any of the teachings of Jehovahs Witnesses as they relate to understanding of the Bible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, it was you who said, "Yes, its entirely possible I could reject the idea", not me. They are your words, not mine. I am not trying to "lead" you; I am just asking you about what you yourself have said.
Why you insist on attempting to lead people into this kind of polarised way of thinking is known only to you. Why do you?
Originally posted by FMFThere are some Bible teachings that I have neither accepted or rejected and simple remain content to acknowledge that they happened. The easterners keeping of Harems by way of example. King David shutting up his Harem after his rebellions son Absalom violated his wives etc and there are many others besides.
Aside from its teaching on the link between "the generation that was alive in 1914" and the “great tribulation”, are there any other JW teachings that you have chosen to neither accept or reject after deliberation?
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary you have continually attempted to present matters in the form of a dichotomy when other scenarios exist. Perhaps you have not done it deliberately, perhaps its simply your way of expressing yourself.
Well, it was you who said, [b]"Yes, its entirely possible I could reject the idea", not me. They are your words, not mine. I am not trying to "lead" you; I am just asking you about what you yourself have said.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre there no JW teachings to guide you on these matters?
There are some Bible teachings that I have neither accepted or rejected and simple remain content to acknowledge that they happened. The easterners keeping of Harems by way of example. King David shutting up his Harem after his rebellions son Absalom violated his wives etc and there are many others besides.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou said "its entirely possible I could reject the idea", not me. That's how you presented this matter to me. It's how you expressed yourself, not me. They are your words.
On the contrary you have continually attempted to present matters in the form of a dichotomy when other scenarios exist. Perhaps you have not done it deliberately, perhaps its simply your way of expressing yourself.