What is barbaric?
Or, rather than what is considered barbaric, which is vast subject and in general not particularly interesting to me, let's ask instead what we ought to consider barbaric.
Is it to be contrasted with neatness and prettiness? This kind of thinking involves serious issues, and many outright sins. No: what is not pretty is simply not pretty, and can be downright noble.
Is the barbaric to be contrasted with justice, equality, balance? If in the sense of "everything in moderation", then no: in that this would also mean goodness in moderation, justice and injustice in moderation, and moderation in moderation: "everything in moderation" is either a poorly formed phrase or a delusive philosophy.
It would work though if used in the sense (which no one really uses it in) of the moderating of a moderator: control. This can indeed be applied to everything, including itself: "everything with control", everything measured and meet, doing what is right: to everything there is a season.
Incidentally, this cannot be done if you do "everything in moderation", as if you avoid extremes then it is completely by chance that you act appropriately: if an extreme is presented to you, a moment of truth, you will fail where it is most important that you act rightly. You may live in delusion for years because placid, undramatic actions just happen to be right for the majority of an uneventful lifespan. But, when touched by a crisis, the delusion will crumble, and the disaster that results can leave eternal scars.
You must have both, both moderation and extremes. You must have all the weights in the bag to balance the scales with the right one: matching moderation to moderation, and the extreme to the extreme: this is extremely important.
#sabbathposts 2024/02/10
Rhy Bezuidenhout
From my view, barbarism is the act of applying unjustified suffering to someone else where there is no benefit to either party except a show of power by the barbarian. Vandalism, mass murder, burning someone's field, etc.
On"moderating of a moderator": Would the moderator truly be fulfilling their role if they needed moderating themself? Or do you mean the actual deed of moderating that a moderator practices, as that would make sense?
Can a person live their entire life in moderation? In my view, yes, if you are emotionless and don't care about much in life as even a brief outburst of laughter could be considered not to be moderate.
Also, if you don't stand for something in life then you will fall for everything. So, if you are moderate in your beliefs and don't want to hurt someone else's feelings all the time then you won't be outspoken in your own beliefs and just sit on the fence, so to speak.
Yes, we should be Spirit controlled, so no uncontrolled outbursts of anger. That doesn't make anger against an unjust deed wrong, it is the uncontrolled part that is wrong. A spondanious outburst of joy is again good as joy is one of the fruits...
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?