Srecko Sostar

A person that expresses sympathy for a dead small dog hundreds or thousands of miles away, but who absolutely thinks all babies are enemies of God, has some screws loose.

I don't know enough about the human psyche to be qualified to explain human actions. But I dare to say that sometimes we are "strange" in our reactions.
On the one hand, it's nice to see that someone has empathy for another when that person is going through a difficult period. Even if it referred to animals which, according to the Bible, are goods that man can manage as he pleases. Even though people/slaves and servants were goods, they had a bad status and some treated them in the past and today even worse than animals.
When someone who declares himself a JW shows humanity towards a person he considers and labels as an enemy, an apostate and other bad attributes, then one has to think a little. What is it that moves a JW to compassion because someone like Pudgy lost a dog, while on the other hand dismissing the suffering of the many human victims of CSA by members of his religion and dismissing the responsibility of the WTJWorg institution for covering up that evil and suffering, not only from their own brothers and sisters but also from the authorities who "were tasked by God to carry the sword" and punish the perpetrators of crimes. The task of punishing not only the "godless" but also the "true servants of God" who are lawless.
I think that the GB leadership (together with the congregational elders, most of them) has long since become too immersed in the imaginary role of "kings and judges", so they forget that they have unjustifiably gone beyond the scope of mortals, which they actually are, and placed themselves above other mortals.
They (GB) instill this sense of too much importance in JW followers as well, so most of them lose their natural sense of "love" and "human affection" that should be beyond the control of GB.
 

I have been disfellowshipped twice in my life, the latest I initiated, and it was quite the experience to see family and friends cut “love” off,  and back on, and back off again, like a light switch.
I have come to believe, by actual real life test, not some theory, is that “love” that can do that …. isn’t.
Of course, such fantasies are sometimes useful, so we don’t drown our ugly children at birth.
 

I don't know enough about the human psyche to be qualified to explain human actions. But I dare to say that sometimes we are "strange" in our reactions.
On the one hand, it's nice to see that someone has empathy for another when that person is going through a difficult period. Even if it referred to animals which, according to the Bible, are goods that man can manage as he pleases. Even though people/slaves and servants were goods, they had a bad status and some treated them in the past and today even worse than animals.
When someone who declares himself a JW shows humanity towards a person he considers and labels as an enemy, an apostate and other bad attributes, then one has to think a little. What is it that moves a JW to compassion because someone like Pudgy lost a dog, while on the other hand dismissing the suffering of the many human victims of CSA by members of his religion and dismissing the responsibility of the WTJWorg institution for covering up that evil and suffering, not only from their own brothers and sisters but also from the authorities who "were tasked by God to carry the sword" and punish the perpetrators of crimes. The task of punishing not only the "godless" but also the "true servants of God" who are lawless.
I think that the GB leadership (together with the congregational elders, most of them) has long since become too immersed in the imaginary role of "kings and judges", so they forget that they have unjustifiably gone beyond the scope of mortals, which they actually are, and placed themselves above other mortals.
They (GB) instill this sense of too much importance in JW followers as well, so most of them lose their natural sense of "love" and "human affection" that should be beyond the control of GB.
 

It’s a sad day of tears in our house tonite, Barkey our 16 year old little chihuahua, who had cataracts and eye ulcers, and only three teeth, and has been really sick for two months, has died.
I know there is no scriptural basis for it, but I pray to Jehovah to remember him, and show mercy for this little dog, when our loved ones are resurrected.
He was a very mild tempered and affectionate member of our family
Tomorrow I will build a wooden funeral pyre in the front yard for him.
The Universe is big enough for many “Rainbow Bridges”.
I hope and pray that Jehovah will entertain the idea.
 

Always…. when you are beaten … you revert to ad hominem attacks. 
… but even those fail. 

Since when do the terms "perfect" and "imperfect" date? Who was the first to use them to denote things, persons, phenomena as one or the other? According to the first words of the book of Genesis, God marked things as "good".
When he warned Adam about the tree, he didn't frighten him with punishment and told him; "if you eat from the tree you will become imperfect". They were warned that they would die. He did not tell them that they would grow old and get sick. Just that they will die. There is no indication that the people in Eden knew of the existence of (the difference between) perfection and imperfection. They were the way they were and it was "good" for them. And everything around them was "good" for them.
Who is responsible for "creating the imperfection"? When a bad event or even a crime happens between people, then we talk about the perpetrator and the victim. The law says that the perpetrator is responsible for the damage. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator in Eden?
The Bible describes the Serpent, Adam and Eve as perpetrators who were punished. No victim appears to have been harmed. The children born of Adam and Eve seem to be treated not as victims, but as children of criminals and suffer all the troubles from the beginning like their parents.
The same God who punished the first people and all their children to this day, apparently did not hate them, but "only" punished them for disobedience. And he also showed no hatred towards their offspring because he sent his Son to redeem them. So God does not consider people and their babies as his enemies, big and small, but as his lost sons and daughters whom he calls to himself. Apparently Stephen Lett doesn't know that or has forgotten it in the meantime.

Since when do the terms "perfect" and "imperfect" date? Who was the first to use them to denote things, persons, phenomena as one or the other? According to the first words of the book of Genesis, God marked things as "good".
When he warned Adam about the tree, he didn't frighten him with punishment and told him; "if you eat from the tree you will become imperfect". They were warned that they would die. He did not tell them that they would grow old and get sick. Just that they will die. There is no indication that the people in Eden knew of the existence of (the difference between) perfection and imperfection. They were the way they were and it was "good" for them. And everything around them was "good" for them.
Who is responsible for "creating the imperfection"? When a bad event or even a crime happens between people, then we talk about the perpetrator and the victim. The law says that the perpetrator is responsible for the damage. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator in Eden?
The Bible describes the Serpent, Adam and Eve as perpetrators who were punished. No victim appears to have been harmed. The children born of Adam and Eve seem to be treated not as victims, but as children of criminals and suffer all the troubles from the beginning like their parents.
The same God who punished the first people and all their children to this day, apparently did not hate them, but "only" punished them for disobedience. And he also showed no hatred towards their offspring because he sent his Son to redeem them. So God does not consider people and their babies as his enemies, big and small, but as his lost sons and daughters whom he calls to himself. Apparently Stephen Lett doesn't know that or has forgotten it in the meantime.

Based on the above, we can accept other possibilities of conclusion. The idea "that we have the capacity to become enemies of God" was realized by the very act of God's creation of angels and the first humans.
The possibility and capacity to be an enemy does not arise from the fact that someone is born/created perfect or imperfect, but from the fact that all of them have the freedom to decide that all of them  have free will, which they received from God. So, God is the cause of this possibility for someone to become his enemy. And what are we going to do now?
Free will exists only when we can realize it in reality. Before that it is just a fantasy of the mind. When can a baby realize, exercise its free will? 

If Jesus did not have the ability to father a child, he would have been defective.

Your logical reasoning is so twisted when you die, they are going to have to screw you into the ground.

I had to think about it for a while, because my first thought was that if Jesus had a child it would be a hybrid and not be perfect…… Better than many or  most, but not perfect.
But then again I thought about the example of Jehovah God being a father Of Jesus, and Mary was an imperfect woman, so I guess you can have a hybrid birth and the offspring still be perfect.

This whole discussion reminds me of a satire on the Golden Age of Comics, which was during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Based on the above, we can accept other possibilities of conclusion. The idea "that we have the capacity to become enemies of God" was realized by the very act of God's creation of angels and the first humans.
The possibility and capacity to be an enemy does not arise from the fact that someone is born/created perfect or imperfect, but from the fact that all of them have the freedom to decide that all of them  have free will, which they received from God. So, God is the cause of this possibility for someone to become his enemy. And what are we going to do now?
Free will exists only when we can realize it in reality. Before that it is just a fantasy of the mind. When can a baby realize, exercise its free will? 

Perhaps this could be looked at with the following idea. Angels materialized after their perfection was taken away. Similar to Adam and Eve, who bore children after their perfection was taken away, so their children were imperfect, too.
The Logos did not materialize like the aforementioned angels, but was born as the man Jesus. His perfect DNA could prevail in the genetics of his children, so the children would perhaps be less imperfect and thus less hostile to God?

This whole discussion was caused by one frivolous statement of a GB member. Now we see how much damage the leading people at WTJWorg are causing by generating botched discussions due to GB botched instructions. And so for 140 years.

Yep.

…. and Eric, you are confusing two entirely separate things. 
By not being perfect, Adam and Eve lost any advantages of the natural consequences that being perfect brings.
Eternal life
Superior genetics
The ability to have two way conversations with the Creator
… and many others.
It’s like when an employee is just “not working out” and is belligerent, disobedient, insubordinate, lazy, or just refuses to “get with the program”.
I have had to fire, or recommend that they be fired, and they had to pack up their stuff in cardboard boxes, and be escorted off the property.
Not having employment, many lives fell apart, and were ruined.
But as “unsuitable” as they were, and denied the “blessings” of a good job, THEY WERE NOT MY ENEMIES.
An ENEMY is someone marked for death and YOU ARE the one that actively seeks to KILL THEM.
If the fired employee takes his cardboard box home, and dies of a a stroke or heart attack, “Stuff Happens”. 
But, he is NOT THE ENEMY.
An ENEMY is someone you seek out and cut their throat with a sharp knife when they are sleeping, because they are a real, clear, and present danger.
Babies are not a real, clear and present danger.
Jehovah has the Sovereign right to kill any of us at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, even babies, as he did in Egypt so long ago.
That does NOT MAKE babies natural enemies of God.
 

Perhaps this could be looked at with the following idea. Angels materialized after their perfection was taken away. Similar to Adam and Eve, who bore children after their perfection was taken away, so their children were imperfect, too.
The Logos did not materialize like the aforementioned angels, but was born as the man Jesus. His perfect DNA could prevail in the genetics of his children, so the children would perhaps be less imperfect and thus less hostile to God?

This whole discussion was caused by one frivolous statement of a GB member. Now we see how much damage the leading people at WTJWorg are causing by generating botched discussions due to GB botched instructions. And so for 140 years.

Did David and Bathsheba give birth to the enemy of God? Did their son die because he was an enemy or did God punish David and Bathsheba by killing their baby? Adulterers were spared life, and the price for keeping them alive was the death of a newborn child? That child must have been a real danger to David's Kingdom. A dangerous little enemy. Perhaps the fate of that child would have been better if it had been a female child.

Is this statement in any context? Be that as it may, it gives the message that GB members, who according to your own words and their own are imperfect, are ultimately enemies of God. So the enemies of God run WTJWorg?
 
Commentary through the question about materialized angels. Are their children, the Nephilim, evil because they were born of angelic fathers and earthly women? Or because they were not well raised by their parents?
If Jesus had children with an earthly woman, would his children be evil from birth, because he is of angelic origin as well (I say angelic because WTJWorg considers him to be the angel Michael)?

Perfect common sense rebuttal!
And the logic and reasoning is theologically sound, reasonable, and the logic is solid, Srecko Sostar.

Is this statement in any context? Be that as it may, it gives the message that GB members, who according to your own words and their own are imperfect, are ultimately enemies of God. So the enemies of God run WTJWorg?
 
Commentary through the question about materialized angels. Are their children, the Nephilim, evil because they were born of angelic fathers and earthly women? Or because they were not well raised by their parents?
If Jesus had children with an earthly woman, would his children be evil from birth, because he is of angelic origin as well (I say angelic because WTJWorg considers him to be the angel Michael)?

My antics are meaningless?
HAHAAHAhahahaa.!!

By the way, Freddie,  if you intend to try to weasel way your way out of your own words by saying I took you out of context, I have a screenshot of your entire post.