Alphonse

George, I have nowhere suggested that only am I entitled to ask questions. Where or how you came up with this notion is for you to explain. Just above I answered a question of yours. But, in response, my hope that you'd answer the extremely simple question asked of you was dashed by what appears to be abject refusal.
Was it okay for early humans to feed their babies milk? 
if yes, why? 
if no, why?

@Many Miles Sorry for the delay. As you can verify, this comment runs to nearly 1,300 words; I had been working on it since this morning when I saw all your comments again this morning, but somehow life kept getting in the way. You know how that is, and sometimes ought to be. I'll only reply to two comments here and tie the rest of your points in a separate post.
I can see why it appears that way from your point of view. It truly required more faith to be a Christian in the first century in Galatia than what your advocating, precisely for this reason. From your perspective you only have to believe that Scripture is divinely inspired. The first century Christian had to believe not only that Scripture was divinely inspired, but also that the Congregation was divinely guided in interpreting and explicating the doctrines and teachings. So the rationalist solution it seems tried to cut out the need for a divinely appointed interpretive authority, by positing them to just allow the text to speak for itself. Such a proposal meant that in a certain sense, they didn't have to trust any human in order to exercise faith. All questions of faith could be verified or falsified to their own satisfaction, by examining the Scriptures for themselves. But, from the first century point of view, not trusting the Congregation in her divinely appointed role as steward and interpreter of Scripture, was a deficiency of faith. They were not called to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting their own interpretation of Scripture, but to trust Jehovah & Christ by trusting the Congregation.
So there were two kinds of Christians. Those who I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian was primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. Those whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ and the act of faith in the Congregation was one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Jehovah & Christ was the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Congregation was secondary or somewhere down the line. If you put yourself in the time period of the first generation of Christians it is easier to understand what it meant to be an ecclesiological Christian. In order to put faith in Jehovah & Christ you would have needed to trust the Apostles and those appointed by them, who were taking the lead at that time.
I’m not suggesting in the least that anyone was violating their own conscience. As I said, I think what Paul is teaching in Galatians 1:6-8 is a middle position between a rationalism that tests all claims by one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and a mindless fideism that accepts as infallible whatever those taking the lead were saying regarding the faith.  According to Galatians 1:6-9 an individual must never go against his conscience. If someone taking the lead asked them do something that went against their conscience, they should not do it so long as it was in conflict with their conscience. But they had an obligation to determine whether their conscience was uninformed, or whether what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation. If what the person(apostle, angel, overseer) was asking them to do was contrary to the teaching of the Congregation, then they were not to do it. But if they discovered that their conscience was uninformed, then they were to conform their conscience to the mind of the Congregation. 
So I’m speaking at the level of how they informed their conscience regarding what was false. Were they to go by their own interpretation of Scripture, or was there an authority to which they were to submit their interpretation? If they went by their own interpretation, then false teachings just meant any theological position that differed significantly from theirs, as determined by them. So these terms would become relativized.  Part of informing one’s conscience was determining the rightful ecclesial authority and its basis, and what doctrines had been taught by the Congregation. 
Better examples than Meribah that Illustrate what Paul was saying in Galatians is Aaron and the Levites.  The task of teaching the people from the law belonged especially to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons through every generation. After Moses wrote the law, he "gave it to the priests, the Levites, who carry the ark of Jehovah’s covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. (Deuteronomy 31:9) The Levitical priests had stewardship or “charge” over the law (Deut. 17:18). And when Moses gave his final blessing over each of the tribes of Israel, when he came to the tribe of Levi he prophesied: “Let them instruct Jacob in your judicial decisions, And Israel in your Law.” (Deut. 33:10) The Levitical priests were not only stewards of the scrolls, they were stewards of the proper understanding and explanation of what was written upon them. Jehovah told Aaron that throughout the generations of his sons, they were to “teach the Israelites all the regulations that Jehovah has spoken to them through Moses.” (Lev 10:11) When there were questions about the interpretation of the law, the people were to go up to the place that Jehovah would choose, where the Levitical priests were “ministering before Jehovah,” and they were to inquire the Levitical priests (Deut. 17:9), and the priests would hand down their decision. And in these cases the people were to do according to all the direction of the priests. “The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die.” (Deut. 17:12) Moses exhorted the people to “be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests will instruct you” (Deut. 24:8) The Levites were to “answer every man of Israel with a loud voice” the curses of the law (Deut. 27:14).

The author of 2 Chronicles connects having the law, with having a “priest to teach,” precisely because the exposition of the law belonged to the Levitical priests. The author writes, “For a long time Israel had been without the true God, without a priest teaching, and without law.” (2 Chronicles 15:3) It wasn’t as though the scrolls were missing. But, without a teaching priest, it was as if there were no law. And when Jehoshaphat set out to restore the people to true worship, he did not simply make copies of the scrolls and have them each read them. Instead, he sent authorized teachers (including a group of Levitical priests) to the cities of Judah, to teach the people from the “the book of Jehovah’s Law.” (2 Chronicles 17:9) Likewise, it was no accident that Ezra the priest and the “ the Levites, were explaining the Law to the people... And they continued reading aloud from the book, from the Law of the true God, clearly explaining it and putting meaning into it; so they helped the people to understand what was being read.” (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

The  priests had their teaching authority not fundamentally because of any academic training they had received, but fundamentally because of their appointment from Aaron, whom God had divinely chosen to be the high priest, and to whom and to his descendants God had given the task of teaching and interpreting the law for the people. In this respect the Levitical priesthood was like the first century Governing Body, because the teaching and interpretive authority of the Levitical priests was not in virtue of their intelligence or academic training, but in virtue of their divine calling as descendants of Aaron. Same with the Apostles. Divine teaching authority in the Congregation is not reducible to academic authority. God chose the weak and foolish, fishermen and tax collectors, to be the foundation stones of the Congregation (Ephesians 2:20, Rev 21:14).

While your illustration may not provide concrete evidence of spoiled meat, it does serve as a reminder of the evilness of humanity and the reasons why God intended to destroy his creation. Although we can only speculate about the exact circumstances leading to God's decision, it serves as a cautionary tale about disobedience and carelessness with our lives. The fact that scripture describes specific types of edible foods suggests that humans were once closer to perfection than we are today, as we have a much greater capacity for imagination. 

What criteria do we use to determine the quality of processed meat? Can it be considered as neglected, decaying meat?
Could you provide an example of pre-flood humans consuming spoiled meat? It appears counterintuitive that they would not have taken precautions to properly handle the meat, such as preparing it immediately after a kill or upon discovering a carcass that was still edible. It stands to reason that humans would have been aware of the potential health risks associated with consuming rotten food, just as we are today.
You present Deuteronomy as evidence:
Is it possible that the words in Deuteronomy 14:21 could be misunderstood to imply that a devoted Jew, who is not a rabbi, can give away or sell meat from a deer that was hit by a car without having to bless it first? What if there was a sheep that accidentally fell off a cliff, and its Shepherd, who happened to be a Jew living in ancient Israel, that was bound by law yet not considered a Rabbi? It's fascinating how far we are willing to push our imagination.
 

I supposed he could have tried.
What does this have to do with Aaron's later sin of being complicit in the disloyalty of God's spokesman, Moses?
After all, a person can by guilty of more than one sin during their life. Right? I'm happy to discuss other instances where Aaron sinned. But the question I've asked in this discussion has to do with the sin of Aaron putting loyalty to God's spokesman ahead of his loyalty to God.

Allow me to shed light on your endeavor to seek the ultimate truth concerning your question. I am here to unveil Aaron's stance on the matter of transgressing against God in past times. What can be said about Aaron's complicity?
22 “Do not be angry, my lord,” Aaron answered. “You know how prone these people are to evil. 23 They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ 24 So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!”
25 Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me.” And all the Levites rallied to him.
27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
Could Aaron, as a wrongdoer himself, have appealed to God for atonement on behalf of Moses and his own wrongdoing?

The issue here lies in determining who has the authority to make such judgments. When we discuss the importance of not blindly following spiritual leaders without evidence, it can easily turn into speculation. If anyone among us has witnessed or heard of any wrongdoing committed by an Elder or a member of the Governing Body, it is believed that God will reveal it to the congregation. Raymond Franz's case was one such example that cannot be justified. However, when someone comes forward with personal experiences that others might not be aware of, such as my own personal encounters with Elders not adhering to Biblical teachings, these experiences hold weight unless God has made it known otherwise. Personal judgment, in this context, is considered to go against the principles outlined in the Bible. Therefore, once again, we must question who has the authority to make such a judgment call.
If we do not, we will find ourselves in the situation described in Matthew 7.

There are those among us who are fascinated by the possibilities of what could have been. We cannot ignore the undeniable truth that God offers us an example through those who defied Him. However, the past cannot be changed. If I were granted the extraordinary ability to travel through time, my first endeavor would be to valiantly stand by Jesus' side. Although I harbor doubts as to whether my efforts would have yielded success, given that Christ was destined to become humanity's savior, the mere notion of trying fills me with indescribable wonder.
Given that Aaron had already disobeyed God, I don't think he was in a position to prevent Moses' disobedience. However, it's worth noting that this is purely speculation and does not have any biblical support. As we previously discussed, it is important to scrutinize any claims with biblical evidence. Although some may agree with your perspective, it is concerning to see how many people are willing to believe without applying scripture as their guide.

It seems that you are unwilling to comprehend my response to a rhetorical question. I shall leave you to ponder upon it. Feel free to engage in speculation with others, but personally, I have no interest in pondering what could have been.
It appears that you are denying that Aaron was anointed and that his behavior, just like Moses', was equally condemned by God. Maybe by examining scripture more closely, you will be able to reach an honest conclusion regarding your question.
 

Can obedience to God be demonstrated through acts of disobedience? Should we submit ourselves to a leader who has provided no evidence to support his claims? There were numerous members at the Watchtower Headquarters who were disloyal. One clear example of this is "Anderson," who, like "Raymond," fell into apostasy. However, simply speaking negatively about the organization does not constitute solid proof. We must once again consider Paul's words and examine the evidence presented in this situation.

Ah, now I understand. This post effectively highlights the presence of individuals within the Watchtower who may choose to be disloyal to God, and it urges us to consider applying Galatians 1:8 to such instances. A valid observation indeed. It is only fair to question the validity of this post in the absence of concrete evidence.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that we should scrutinize every post on this platform, placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.
It seems like you're mentioning the 80s, a time when there was a purge of disloyal members of the society who did not adhere to scriptural support or biblical principles. I personally knew many individuals from that era, and based on what I observed, there were valid reasons for that purge to take place.

Leviticus:
8 12 The anointing of Aaron, and his sons, with the sacrifice concerning the same.
1 Afterward the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread,
3 And assemble all the company at the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation.

I want to clarify that I was referring to the limitations of the test, not the words of Apostle Paul. I apologize if my previous statement was unclear. 
Honest Christians don't require a test to comprehend the essence of decisiveness. Nevertheless, they have a desire to scrutinize facts. Whose facts are being examined? There are facts presented by those who believe in their accuracy, and there are facts supported by scripture that may not be appreciated by everyone. This is particularly true when considering who is presenting these facts.
The focus should also be on those who claim to have a profound understanding of Christ's teachings but manipulate its interpretation. This is an aspect mentioned by Paul, making it relevant for all, including ourselves, and not only limited to Elders or the Governing Body. There is an ancient proverb that ponders, "Who keeps a vigilant eye on the vigilant one?"

Juan, my perspective is primarily based on the application of scripture. There is nothing more enlightening than grasping the profound viewpoints that the apostle Paul expressed on various subjects.
*** w75 9/1 p. 530 Have Intense Love for One Another ***
INTENSE “AGÁPE” LOVE SHOWN BY ALL
 
At this moment, I find myself preoccupied with a more serious matter that goes beyond personal opinions influenced by emotions and thoughts, rather than being grounded in scripture.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/29/news/ex-jehovahs-witness-claims-responsibility-in-facebook-video-for-deadly-blasts-in-india/

Today, there is an ongoing investigation into a blast that occurred at the Jehovah's Witnesses assembly in India. According to reports, an ex-witness is suspected of killing at least two people and injuring around 26-58 others.
https://www.indiablooms.com/news-details/N/92828/nia-to-probe-kerala-serial-blasts-at-jehovah-s-witnesses-convention-amit-shah-speaks-to-cm-pinarayi-vijayan.html
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/ied-blasts-at-christian-prayer-meet-in-kerala-kill-2-injure-58/ar-AA1j3pbu
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/29/explosion-hits-jehovahs-witnesses-prayer-meeting-in-indias-kerala
I send my heartfelt prayers to all of my devoted brothers.

Indeed. This is precisely why it is crucial for devout Christians to exercise common sense when faced with negativity.
As the old saying goes, we are all just chewing the fat. The sum is a valuable observation regarding Titus 3:10 and the accurate interpretation of Matthew 18. This is precisely why scripture emphasizes the importance of wisdom and discernment as a prerequisite, as well as echoes what Paul wrote in Romans 16:17. It is imperative that we do not pick and choose what we desire from scripture, or those who deliver the message of Christ.

Just like the litmus test you keep mentioning, that has nothing to do with scripture. There is no way around it. However, people still persist in trying to persuade others. This is where the negativity distorts the truth. Those who are truly honest should avoid using such manipulative tactics, reminiscent of the Pharisees. Matthew 18 provides guidance on how to address situations where a witness is intentionally or unintentionally misleading others due to their imperfect understanding of scripture.