Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
I agree with Adam's characterization of your post, but you and Tex love to use the "I", implying the rest are idiots and moral reprobates, "defer to the divine". None of us here are necessarily morally superior to any other, but if we can caricature those who believe they that will bring them down to our level. "The angels of heaven" is a known manner of referring to the divine authority argument you invoked. If you don't like it, don't use the device.
Most of the articulation used your own words and then you repudiate their meaning, how is that poppycock?
|
Let's try this again, since you are so hung up on this "angels of heaven" nonsense.
I voice my differing opinions all the time. However, there comes a time in the discussion where the branch president decides what is to be done. He's made that decision in light of or despite of what I and others in the meeting offered as alternative viewpoints. Ultimately, it's his call and it's not my place to override him; I don't have the authority.
If I still disagree with him, what do I do? What avenues are available to me? I can't appoint myself bishop.
Am I morally justified in going against his decision just because I don't agree with it?
I certainly can bring up various topics again, and I have done precisely this before, but the decision still rests with him.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately it's not my call to make.