I think that is what they were meaning. Whoever is in control, everyone else must bow to their absolute opinion.

As Nadi asked, what is the principle of life, truth and peace? Does each individual determine that according to his own opinion? Or only to the opinion of the one who has power over others?

It is relevant. For if you were a member of that society, would you support or condemn those WHO were acting? That is, one must determine whether their acts preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace in order to be supportive of those WHO were acting.

And WHO would that be, and how would THEY guide us in affecting the actions we do?

If I rearranged your response just a little bit, you would discover that your questions were already answered. Here goes:

1. Does each individual determine [the principle of life, truth and peace] according to his own opinion? Or only to the opinion of the one who has power over others?
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterson

   
   What determines the intrinsic goodness of an act is, again, dependent on an eternal perspective: does it "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run.
   
   
   
    
2. ... if you were a member of ... society, would you support or condemn those WHO were acting? That is, one must determine whether their acts preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace in order to be supportive of those WHO were acting.
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterspm

   
   It is not about WHO determines its goodness (what the Roman Catholics did is irrelevant) but rather whether at the end of eternity, so to speak, the act in and of itself preserved and/or resulted in life, truth and peace.
   
   
   
    
3. And WHO would that be, and how would THEY guide us in affecting the actions we do?
   
   
   Originally Posted By: James Peterson

   
   Nevertheless, as to WHO ALONE determines that so that we are guided properly in the here and now, you know the answer and need not that anyone tell you.
   
   That person is GOD who knows the end from the beginning and tells us whether the same act is good or bad depending on the cicumstances.
   
   See Mat. 12:3-5
   
   

There was once a child who learnt of sex in school through his friends. So when he had come home and was dining with his parents, to their consternation, he asked them rather suddenly if it were true that they had sex. The father sat there for a while and thought about the best way to answer his little son: how do you say something is right and wrong at the same time; and why and when and how would it be both right and wrong all at once?

///

The reason I asked the questions were because of your statements. You are doing something circular when you give the cause of the questions as the answer to the questions.

I will assume that I presumed correctly. That when you see men, women, and children being tortured and killed, you do not think in it being right or wrong, but say to yourself, we'll just have to wait and see how it comes out in eternity.

The only way powers such as the papacy can have power is if the people allow it. People who say, we don't know whether torturing someone is right or wrong because only God knows the end from the beginning, and this might "serve the principle of life, truth and peace" in the long run.

And because of that attitude, sir, is how the papacy was allowed to exist and grow.

I absolutely agree that putting the moral judgement sometime in the nebulous "eternity" removes all (most) responsibility from individuals in the here and now. Therefore I must reject that line of reasoning.

I also think that this discussion may be juxtaposed onto a continuum, with acts that are always "good" on the one hand and acts that are always "bad" at the other extreme. Also, the ideas of "good" and "bad" should be understood as:

I. No "ACT" is inherently "good" or "bad" in itself.

II. All acts have a degree of "goodness" and "badness," depending on the situation.

III. Acts are "GOOD" for which, in the general, usual, or vast majority of situations, conditions obtain by which such act promotes peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation.

IV. Acts are "BAD" for which, in extremely rare or perhaps non-existent situations, conditions obtain by which such act promotes a similar peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation.

What degree of goodness is there in demanding wholescale slaughter of those who disagree with you? How could that in any degree promote peace, contentment, love, harmony and cooperation. Well, maybe cooperation in extinguishing the infidels.

I don't know, kland. You tell me.

Perhaps you should ask God that question:
Genesis 6
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 8:25
Joshua 10:40
Joshua 11
1 Samuel 15:3
1 Samuel 27
2 Samuel 8:2

Not to mention God's second coming, when he destroys EVERYONE who disagrees with him.

Love me or I'll kill you. Nice, eh?

Not those who "disagree" with you; but those who would "harm" you. Do you not know that he who kills a robber in his house at night is guiltless? And those who administer the death sentence to murderers are blameless? And yes, no one takes mice and roaches to heart saying, "I will not do harm to God's creation."

Consider then the command of God to wipe out a people. What does He say of those people? What were they guilty of?

2 Chronicles 36:15-21

///

Does not those who disagree with me, "harm" me?