Many Miles

Decay begins at death. Decay escalates to a point where flesh becomes inedible for humans yet still edible for other creatures. Some animals, like maggots, thrive on putrified flesh. Eating flesh is a sort of food from creation.

No. When I've spoken of carrion I've used the term in reference to edible flesh of a dead animal.

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 
"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)
Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.
Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.
Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 
"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)
Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.
Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.
Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

Edible meat is the appropriate description for biological food, just as edible fruit or vegetation is the appropriate depiction of botanical food. I've not suggested eating inedible meat.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Adam and Eve consumed water in the garden. Does this mean Adam and Eve were prohibited from eating water? The means of concluding they did eat water is because, though not vegetation, humans were given dominion of "all the earth" which gave them permission to eat water unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
I have no concrete evidence confirming Eve was created with the capability to feed her offspring breast milk. Does this mean offspring of Eve did not eat milk? The means of concluding they did eat milk is because, though not vegetation, creation demonstrates that eating a mother's milk is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
Like humans were given dominion over all the earth, they were also given dominion of all the animals hence, though not vegetation, this dominion is what gave them permission to eat meat unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could. Moreover, creation through its natural ecosystem teaches us that, though not vegetation, eating edible meat is natural, normal and healthy unless told not to do so. They weren't. So they could.
"And Jehovah God proceeded to make long garments of skin for Adam and for his wife and to clothe them." (Ref: Genesis) 
"...like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed..." (Ref: Peter)
Animals were created to live and die. Dead animal carcasses don't just disappear. Dead animal carcasses are decomposed, metabolized and thus returned to the earth. This is a vital part of earth's created ecosystem. Natural decomposition after death includes other creatures eating the bodily components of that dead flesh resulting in its metabolism. Animal flesh was always a food in Eden and outside Eden.
Genesis 6:21 says what it says. I can't change that. Meat of animals has been a sort of food since creation of animals. The text of Genesis 1:29 does not present a prohibition against eating things that are edible other than vegetation. It only states a permission to eat vegetation. Lack of a specific permission does not present a prohibition. Genesis 1:29 is no more a prohibition against eating meat than it is a prohibition against eating milk or water.
Maybe the question you should ask and answer is: Why would God have specifically given Noah permission to kill and eat animals as food after the flood when animal flesh had been a sort of food eaten since creation? There is an answer, and it's pretty simple and straightforward.

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.
Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?
We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.
 

I indicated no such thing. God gave humans dominion over animals. We know humans were consumers of animal flesh. God himself set the example by providing animal flesh as clothing for humans, which made humans consumers of animal flesh. That is to say, humans made use of animal flesh for their own need.

No need for "evil intent" or "wicked actions" because animals have always died and the consumption of resulting dead flesh would be according to the design harmony of nature's ecosystem created by God. Creation declares that by creative act animal flesh has been a sort of food from the very beginning.
Genesis 6:21 speaks to whatever was available and used as food at any given time. In the case of this discussion's context, animal flesh. At the pre-flood period of Genesis 6:21 the sole forbidden food item was the tree of knowledge. Since creation animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten, both inside and outside the garden.

I disagree that God didn't mention consumption of meat to humans. It may not be explicitly stated in recorded text, but it is stated by implication. By giving humans dominion of animals (Gen 1:26-39) God gave humans permission to use them as they needed or wanted, which would included eating them if they needed or wanted to. As it turns out, humans did use animals for their needs, including transplanting animal flesh onto their own flesh. In this context, what's the difference between putting animal flesh onto one's flesh versus putting flesh into one's flesh?
We also have the text of Genesis 6:21 where God instructed Noah to gather from every sort of food eaten and use it as food for himself and the animals. This is an explicit statement and animal flesh has been a sort of food eaten since animals were created.
 

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.
No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.
No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

That link begins with the false premise "Scriptures consistently teach that blood is a sacred substance, and one that he has withheld for Himself." No argument with a false premise results in a sound conclusion.
No pre-Judaic Law text teaches that the substance of blood is sacred and withheld for God alone. For example, aside from eating blood of animals he killed to eat, Noah was free to do with blood whatever he wanted to do with it. Also, if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat blood it sure is news to me. Insofar as I can see, the only thing God withheld from Adam and Eve was eating from the tree of knowledge.

But you said:
Both can't be true.
Terms like "whatever," "under its jurisdiction," and "has the power to legislate/decide" are sweeping. Either they are true as stated or they are false. You've found yourself trying to justify something with rationalization. I see no need to keep responding to this, and I won't. I've also given up on your teacher in California responding on the life and death issue of the society's position on blood that is equally inexplicable. It is no wonder that since it's first mention in 1944 active JWs have fought against it, even admittedly so as witnessed in the society's own publications and letters to elders.

In very simple terms, what you write here is a permission slip for the society to teach whatever it wants to teach under the cape you call " jurisdiction". It leaves "her" to teach Judaism if she wishes, because of "her" "power to legislate/decide." Let readers make of that what they will. There is no way to falsify that, which makes it useless as premise for sake of a sound conclusion. If that's what you believe, I leave you with it. I have no need to respond to it. As a JW, or any other capacity.

Just to clarify, when you say:
"Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8."
Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"?
The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

Just to clarify, when you say:
"Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8."
Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"?
The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

Honestly it saddens me to see men following men. Just plain petty. Which version of "the organization" are folks supposed to follow? Folks treat men like God, who decides for them what is supposed to be good or bad. The GB shows over and over again it can flip its teachings upside down. What are honest people trying to live right supposed to do? Just prostrate themselves before mortals like themselves and say, "Please! Tell us how today what we should do today to worship our Creator, and tell us tomorrow if YOU want us to do the opposite and we will." Put that in your next work of fiction. Or, maybe its a reality in someone's mind? Go ahead. Write it. It should be that way.
Men who follow men are victims of a dominion never granted to mankind. Mankind was granted dominion over animals, vegetation and the earth. But not dominion of men. Men who dominate men do so to the injury of those whom are dominated by men.
Worship God by living decently. Treat your fellow man as you would want to be treated yourself. Be willing to give your life for those whom you love. Fear God. Do your best to learn yourself what He expects of you. If this is done sincerely it is enough. There is no more to give than your best. Anything beyond that and God will step in to help. And, why not. According to the biblical account, all God ever wanted from Adam was to live in harmony with the natural world provided, and to have enough respect to abide by a single prohibition beyond that.
But that doesn't seem to be enough for some folks. No. Some folks need us to worship "the organization".

I would agree that any mature person should not be denied baptism.
But I must ask, what is "scriptural maturity"?

When it comes to "one of the most serious" decisions (marrying), the society says: "Christians want to wait to get married until they are mature..." (Ref Jan 15, 2001 Watchtower)
So for "one of the most serious" decisions of marrying, the advice is to wait until you are mature.
When it comes to baptism, the society calls this "the most serious decision" an individual can make. (Ref June 15, 2012 Watchtower)

When it comes to "one of the most serious" decisions (marrying), the society says: "Christians want to wait to get married until they are mature..." (Ref Jan 15, 2001 Watchtower)
So for "one of the most serious" decisions of marrying, the advice is to wait until you are mature.
When it comes to baptism, the society calls this "the most serious decision" an individual can make. (Ref June 15, 2012 Watchtower)

So what does common sense tell you about the equipment God created Eve with in order to feed her offspring? Was she designed to feed her offspring milk?
So, as created by God, what in nature returns dead bodies to the dust they were created from? Did this involve any eating? What does common sense tell you?
Indeed. Let's apply all three in response to the questions posed above. Namely, common sense, God, and logic.

Yeah. I remembers some of those talks myself. The real whoppers were the talks given as second and third-hand accounts of men who shared what they learned from those talks. Some real eye-rollers there!
There is current research underway looking at tissue memory and what effect tissue-to-brain communication may have in patients the result of organ transplant. There is so much to learn about biological physiology. But suggesting an outcome of any such research before sound conclusions are achieved is a problem.

Don't worry about me. Just take the hits and keep doing you. Everything you've posted has value from my perspective. Never mind how it looks like I've received it. I prefer to be in a room with people who disagree. I can't learn a thing if people don't take whatever I say and tear it up. I often disagree with something I've said five minutes after I've said it.