#othodoxy

November 11_October 29

THE MONASTIC MARTYR ANASTASIA THE ROMAN (256)

The Monastic Martyr Anastasia the Roman lost her parents when she was three years old, and was taken to be raised by the Igoumeness of a women’s monastery, whose name was Sophia, a nun who had attained a high degree of spiritual perfection. She raised Anastasia in fervent faith, in the fear of God, and obedience. After seventeen years, Anastasia became known as a great ascetic, and she was very beautiful.

The Emperor Decius (249-251) began his persecution of Christians at that time. The city administrator, Probus, following the Emperor's orders, commanded that Anastasia be brought to him. Blessed by her Igoumeness to suffer for Christ, the young martyr Anastasia went out to meet the armed soldiers. Seeing her youth and beauty, Probus first tried flattery to make her deny Christ.

“Why do you waste your youth deprived of pleasure?" he asked. "What is to be gained by enduring tortures and death for the Crucified? Worship our gods, marry a handsome husband, and live with glory and honor.”

While Saint Anastasia stood before the ruler, her mind stood before Christ, and with her spiritual eyes, she beheld the comeliness of her Bridegroom.

The Saint replied, “My spouse, my riches, my life and my happiness are my Lord Jesus Christ, and you cannot turn me away from Him by your deceit!”

Probus had her stripped of her clothing, in order to humiliate her. She told him, "You can have me whipped, beaten, and cut to pieces, and then my nakedness will be hidden by my wounds, and my blood will cover my shame."

Probus subjected Anastasia to horrible tortures. The holy martyr bravely endured all of them, glorifying and praising God. When she became thirsty she asked for some water, and a Christian named Cyril gave her a drink. She thanked him, but Probus had him beheaded.

Then her tormentors cut off her breasts and ripped out her tongue, while an Angel held her upright. When the people witnessed the inhuman and disgusting treatment the Saint received, they became indignant, and Probus was forced to end the tortures by having her beheaded. In this manner, Saint Anastasia received the unfading crown of martyrdom.

Saint Anastasia's body was thrown outside the city limits to be eaten by wild animals, but the Lord did not permit her holy relics to be dishonored. By the instructions of a holy Angel, Igoumeness Sophia found Saint Anastasia’s mutilated body. With the help of two Christians, she buried it in the earth.

Saint Anastasia the Roman should not be confused with Saint Anastasia Pharmakolytria, who is commemorated on December 22.

LUKE 11:14-23

14 And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute. So it was, when the demon had gone out, that the mute spoke; and the multitudes marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." 16 Others, testing Him, sought from Him a sign from heaven. 17 But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. 22 But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils. 23 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

GALATIANS 5:22-6:2 

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Psalm 103Of David.

1 Praise the Lord, my soul;    all my inmost being, praise his holy name. 2 Praise the Lord, my soul,    and forget not all his benefits— 3 who forgives all your sins    and heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit    and crowns you with love and compassion, 5 who satisfies your desires with good things    so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

6 The Lord works righteousness    and justice for all the oppressed.

7 He made known his ways to Moses,    his deeds to the people of Israel: 8 The Lord is compassionate and gracious,    slow to anger, abounding in love. 9 He will not always accuse,    nor will he harbor his anger forever; 10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve    or repay us according to our iniquities. 11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,    so great is his love for those who fear him; 12 as far as the east is from the west,    so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

13 As a father has compassion on his children,    so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him; 14 for he knows how we are formed,    he remembers that we are dust. 15 The life of mortals is like grass,    they flourish like a flower of the field; 16 the wind blows over it and it is gone,    and its place remembers it no more. 17 But from everlasting to everlasting    the Lord’s love is with those who fear him,    and his righteousness with their children’s children— 18 with those who keep his covenant    and remember to obey his precepts.

19 The Lord has established his throne in heaven,    and his kingdom rules over all.

20 Praise the Lord, you his angels,    you mighty ones who do his bidding,    who obey his word. 21 Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts,    you his servants who do his will. 22 Praise the Lord, all his works    everywhere in his dominion.

Praise the Lord, my soul.

Story of Repentance

...Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

...And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

  One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

  Peter denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

  So, when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest though me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

  He saith unto him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; though knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John 18: 17

John 18: 25 - 27

The formal rules of debate and discussion that are upheld in most Western democracies and taken as the template for debate etiquette on Facebook are not actually fair or balanced. There are two reasons for this.

Essentially, all societies are inherently conservative by nature, as people are very slow to change their opinions on matters even when new information is provided. When someone has formed a view, it takes a substantially greater amount of contradictory evidence to make them even begin to question it, let alone recognise its flaws; plenty of psychological studies have shown this, as has the general trend of human progress (name one time a massive democratic change took place in the social order without tooth-and-nail fighting on an ideological front).

The formal rules of debate and discussion basically align to this, and they have two underlying elements that reinforce it.

First is assumed fact: if someone proposes position A, which is the current social norm or orthodox belief, and someone else poses position B, which is new or unorthodox belief, person B will be required to source and cite their position much more strictly under the existing rules than person A. Person A gets to state the orthodoxy as fact and everyone just nods their head and says "Of course!" without asking for it to be proven or demonstrated, while person B has to fight an uphill battle to establish their unorthodox belief as even valid.

This is independent of who's right. Sheer social inertia sees that the person who says "America is a force for freedom and democracy in the world" gets an easier time of it than the person who says "America only pays lip service to freedom and democracy: in reality, America much prefers stable and controllable dictatorships across the world".

You may say "Ah, but this is not how things are meant to be!" but unfortunately it's how they always go. The person who sides with orthodoxy frequently does not even have to cite supporting sources unless actively and persistently challenged, and even then the onerous of proof is on the dissenting opinion.

Second is bias of reference: almost all of the learned, established educational institutions of the world are aligned with orthodoxy that supports the current power, whatever form it takes. To put it more simply, large institutions are aligned to the current powers that be because they depend on them for funding and patronage, one way or another.

This means that research that favours world views that benefit the existing hegemony will always be preferentially selected, as the rich and powerful like to hear stuff that aligns with their goals and purposes. In recent years, see the wholesale purchase of syllabuses in campuses across America for a dramatic example of this (for example, the gentleman who's been donating to American Universities in exchange for Atlas Shrugged being taught).

What this means is that it's:

a) Far easier to come up with sources that say "Hey, the orthodox view is correct!" 

b) Much more likely that such sources will be accredited to more prestigious institutions than their unorthodox counterparts.

This is not so much of an issue in hard sciences (though the politicisation of the science of Climate Change suggests the way this will go in future), but in soft areas like sociology, economics and political theory (which are much, much more open to interpretation and subjectivity), this makes it far more likely to find favourable treatments of Milton Friedman's economical theories than those of Karl Marx.

So that's how the deck's stacked against unorthodox opinion to begin with, even before we get into the problems of bias.

I did mention two reasons, though, and the second is basically just that: bias. People give opinions they agree with a much easier ride than those they are hostile toward.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most people subconsciously hold the arguments made by people they disagree with to a higher necessity of rigour than those of the people they agree with. It's automatic, and nobody is really immune (The left as a community does the same thing from the opposite direction): if someone states facts about, say, the Military Industrial Complex than you agree with, and someone states facts that you disagree with, you're going to regard the ones you agree with as obvious and the ones you don't agree with as suspicious and therefore requiring greater elaboration.

The key point is that this bias of consensus is essentially enshrined in the standard rules of debate and discussion as practised by Western democracies.

Everywhere are people of God. You never know if the one you see today might tomorrow be a Saint.