WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT WAS NEW AT THE 2019 "LOVE NEVER FAILS" REGIONAL CONVENTION ?

[Melinda Mills]

Things we have to learn about the animals:

Adam was in the garden several years before Eve was created.  He saw animals dying and knew about death. Therefore he understood what would happen if he disobeyed.  Why did Jehovah not give or promise everlasting life to animals although they did not sin?

Why did not Jesus die for animals? 

 

------

(Exodus 21:28-32) ²⁸ “If a bull gores a man or a woman and that one dies, the bull must be stoned to death and its meat is not to be eaten; but the owner of the bull is free from punishment. ²⁹ But if a bull was in the habit of goring and its owner had been warned but he would not keep it under guard and it killed a man or a woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner is also to be put to death. ³⁰ If a ransom is imposed on him, he must give as the redemption price for his life all that may be imposed on him. ³¹ Whether it gored a son or a daughter, it is to be done to the bull’s owner according to this judicial decision. ³² If the bull gored a slave man or a slave girl, he will give the price of 30 shekels to that one’s master, and the bull will be stoned to death.

(Accounting with animals? but judgement had to be executed by man. Bull will not stone itself to death.)

[JW Insider]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:38 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

What I like about the JW organization is that they’re unafraid of verses like 1 Timothy 6:20: “O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” For making a show of such [knowledge] some have deviated from the faith.”

To me, 1 Tim 6:20 seems more related to the so-called knowledge that comes from inside the congregation, because this would be consistent with the prior context of 1 Timothy. The idea of falsely called wisdom from the outside is referred to especially in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, which @Outta Here referred to. Not that the idea is wrong, but bringing up 1 Tim 6:20 in the context of something that the JW Organization should be particularly good at seems wrong to me. That's because I believe it refers to something that SHOULD be a pet peeve of every Witness about a particular habit of the Watchtower writers that continues to get us in trouble.

We very often, historically, have made claims about certain interpretations of the scriptures that are completely unnecessary, and which turn out to be things that we end up dropping when the contradictions to actual events or other scriptures become too untenable to stretch belief any further. I could relist every single teaching which has had to be updated to make this point.

But each of those interpretations was treated as knowledge when it was taught. Even though they turned out to be false, and required updating. Just because we like to avoid the word false, and call it "refinements" or "increasing light" changes nothing about the falsehood of the previously called knowledge.

But spiritual food does not have a shelf life. Those false teachings were never spiritual food to begin with. There has NEVER been a reason to turn a specific interpretation into "knowledge."

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

Why did not Jesus die for animals? 

I am not going to answer it for you.

1.)  Since the beginning of life on Earth there have been two kinds of animals .... those that eat plants, and those that eat each other.  This is the natural order of things, and as sentimental as I am about animals, I cannot ignore this scary fact.

That is obviously how life on Earth was designed, cartoon theology notwithstanding.

If the Lion, and the Lamb lay down together, it will be because the lamb is inside the lion.

To answer your question ... it was never God's intent to give animals everlasting life, and that includes pre- creation humans that evolved. Only the New Creation ... "Homo Theocraticus", was ever intended to have the opportunity for everlasting life.  Neanderthals and such just lived whatever they could manage and died. End of story.

2.) That is a good idea, not to provide an answer, because the very, very BEST answer would only be a best guess ... including no. 1, above.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But each of those interpretations was treated as knowledge when it was taught. Even though they turned out to be false, and required updating. Just because we like to avoid the word false, and call it "refinements" or "increasing light" changes nothing about the falsehood of the previously called knowledge.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

IT'S A DUCK!

A duck by any other name is still a duck!

 

....except of course, when there is a fear that if it is admitted to being a duck, the donations will stop.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

He saw animals dying and knew about death.

Possibility exist, but no Bible verse speaking about this idea, known to me, in that way. No Bible report exist about what Adam knew about death or about some other things.

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Therefore he understood what would happen if he disobeyed. 

This is also just in sphere of our interpretations. :)) and on our conclusions about what they ,supposedly, see, know, understand etc, .... based on our own experiences and/or based on conclusions made by people lived before us. 

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Why did Jehovah not give or promise everlasting life to animals although they did not sin?

Where and when JHVH promised Adam such thing, everlasting life ? He promised him/them dead if eating fruit. We don't know what JHVH "promised" to animal :)) .... at loud or in His own Thoughts.

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Why did not Jesus die for animals? 

Because they not sinned :)) They not sinned because some other laws ran their living. 

[Melinda Mills]

*** it-1 p. 596 Death ***
Cause of Death in Humans. The first reference to death in the Scriptures occurs at Genesis 2:16, 17 in God’s command to the first man concerning the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, violation of which command would result in death. (See NW ftn.) However, death among animals as a natural process was evidently already in effect, since they are passed over completely in the Biblical presentation of the introduction of death into the human family. (Compare 2Pe 2:12.) The gravity of God’s warning about the death penalty for disobedience would therefore be understandable to his human son, Adam. Adam’s disobedience to his Creator brought death to him. (Ge 3:19; Jas 1:14, 15) Thereafter, Adam’s sin and its consequence, death, spread to all men.—Ro 5:12; 6:23.
 

(2 Peter 2:12) But these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct and are born to be caught and destroyed, speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course,
 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because they not sinned :))

Of course, there was that "God-damned" snake in the grass back in Eden. It was cursed to crawl on the ground and lick the dust with its [forked] tongue.

Then there were those pigs that allowed themselves to be possessed by demons, and were driven to commit suicide.

Certain animals might have listened to communication from God to be able to receive a name from Adam. The same could be said for the animals that listened to communication from God to get on Noah's ark. Or for ravens to find Elijah to bring him food. Or, perhaps even a big fish who nearly snacked on Jonah. And there's that special relationship between Jehovah and Leviathan and Behemoth.

God gives animals "meat in due season" (food at the proper time):

• (Psalm 104:27) . . .All of them wait for you To give them their food in its season.

And a donkey evidently saved a man's life by ascertaining an invisible angel.

On a serious note, I think most people agree that many persons have an unbalanced view of pets. But it's also easy to get unbalanced in the direction of disdaining pets and animals. Remember that Jehovah himself rejoices at his works which obviously includes his many interactions with animals according to the context of Psalm 104. 

• (Psalm 104:28-31) . . .What you give them, they gather. When you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. ²⁹ When you hide your face, they are disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust. ³⁰ If you send out your spirit, they are created, And you renew the surface of the ground. ³¹ The glory of Jehovah will last forever. Jehovah will rejoice in his works.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

2Pe 2:12.

But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. 

I agree how people (me) do not understand many things and can blaspheme because that fact. Peter wrote those words some 4000 years after Adam and Eve stuff. So, he was also under reasoning that  prevailed in human society until then. Animals, he said, are "unreasoning", run by instinct... so animals, Peter conclude, are BORN to be caught and destroyed (slaughtered and eaten). That is in opposition to reports in Genesis where we can't see any verse who would said that God create animals to be born for for final purpose - to be destroyed. No verse, in this 3 chapters of Genesis, content some claim or possibility that animals are born to be hunted and eaten by other animals or by human.  But Bible say this:

    Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. ³⁰ And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. 

According to this direct JHVH words, it seems how Peter wrote information that is not quite full about relationship between human and animals and animals to animals from the begining!. He forget to mentioned how JHVH determined in advance what the food would be to humans and animals (fruit, plant and seed). Of course, reason for his mentioning animals in this chapter was another issue. I just want to put some other perspective about animals and their purpose and position before God and human. 

Peter based, i guess, his description about animals on other elements, as God's words to Noah, People Nature and People's mastering over nature and animal.

Yes, God created land animals and after he finished with those species, He said, Hey why not to create something different. I made several type of monkeys and this construction can be base for a little advanced Creature and I will give him much more than i gave to all other Dusts. I will put him to be Manager of all this.

At the end of Day 7, He not gave to Human more praise than to other animals. He "just" conclude how All created is Good.   :)))

[Matthew9969]

I didn't go to the convention, but I can summarize what it may have been about and not what I learned but what I already know. 

Love your neighbor as yourself, unless your neighbor professes to be a Christian. 

You must love the governing body just as much as you love Jehovah, because they are Jehovah in a sense.

No one else on earth has as much love as jehovahs witnesses.

Kicking a 15 year old out of your house because they got baptized at 6 years old and started to question the governing body is the most loving thing you can do for your child.

Jehovahs love for you is conditional on you loving the governing body.

[TrueTomHarley]

43 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Kicking a 15 year old out of your house because they got baptized at 6 years old and started to question the governing body is the most loving thing you can do for your child.

This does not happen.

I would not say that it never ever happens. It may. It is a big world with many people and you never know what individuals might do. But no way would it ever be sanctioned by the organization. Nor is 6 an age that I have ever heard of for someone being baptized. Again, it may have happened, but I know of no examples. One of my kids wanted to get baptized at 10, and was advised to wait. (and was bummed about it) However, another was baptized a 9–something which was most unusual, but not unheard of. I think the tendency is to recommend more years of age today—mid teens is what I typically see.

More likely the case presented is the 15 year old running away due to an atmosphere he/she thought too “restrictive” and then retroactively spinning it as being “kicked out” of the home. Kids locking horns with parents and running away from home is a theme almost as old as time. In this case her parents following the lead of the organization is presented as the trigger—and may actually be the trigger—but it is always something. It is not new.

Malcontents complain at great length over the video shown at a convention of a teenaged girl “kicked out” of her house for immorality. Were they to be more honest, they would acknowledge that 

1) she ran away from home,

2) her parents did not want her to go,

3) (admittedly speculative) she thereafter represented the situation as being “kicked out” due to the repressive rule of the Governing Body. (Actually, the girl of the video probably did not, because she did return, but many girls of reality do just that.)

It was so with a star witness at the Russian trial that resulted in a countrywide ban. She complained of the oppressive tactics of the organization. When asked to give an example, she offered up her being ejected for her “not officially sanctioned” relationship with a man. Here she is “shacking up,” an action once universally condemned by most of society, and virtually ALL of religious society, and she spins it as a philosophical disagreement with the Witness organization!

Adhering to Bible moral standards on matters of sexuality was once commonplace, and what the video portrays would have once been spun as “tough love.” 

I have been going through a Great Courses series on CD lately. The narrator (Prof Patrick Allitt) observes that in 1960 a child out of wedlock was an absolute shocker to general society. Fifteen years later it was commonplace. Those condemning the video are essentially those condemning a traditional generation for not more quickly falling into line with the “new morality”—spinning it as a conflict with the Witness organization, when in actually it is a conflict with the morality of the Bible.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

3) (admittedly speculative) she thereafter represented the situation as being “kicked out” due to the repressive rule of the Governing Body. (Actually, the girl of the video probably did not, because she did return, but many girls of reality do just that.)

I found it curious how you phrased "".... but many girls of reality ... ", as if Witness girls are somehow divorced from reality..

... merely a curious semantic slip ...

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

In the "next town over"  Congregation one Elder had two daughters, who got multiple Tattoos, (shoulder and base of spine), and Dad threw them out ( I do not know the age, but one of my sons dated the older  Sister, while he was in High School.....),  The younger sister was "lost" to the world, the older one came back and married an Elder about 40 years older than she was.. (raised eyebrows and astonishment all the way around...).

When speaking about people ... there is truly INFINITE variety.