Theoretical question: since "traditionally, people have fasted by eliminating luxury items from their diets, such as meats," but currently luxury items in my diet are fish, not meat, does that mean that I should skip fish instead of meat this lent? Fish costs twice or thrice as much as meat.
Since fish is no longer the poor man's food, doesn't that defeat the purpose of fasting altogether?
When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
—Matthew 6:16-18, NIV
See, when I eat fish I consider it to be awesome, a treat, come on, salmon, swordfish, smoked bream--why would the unseen Father reward me for treating myself on Fridays, the day of the crucifixion? Besides the joy of eating it, I'm afraid I'd also be taking joy in being a good Christian, which is the sin of pride. So is it worth it? Man, I gotta start making it to church more often.
I guess until I figure this all out I'll compromise and do fish for lent but only on Fridays. Fish every day doesn't make it into my budget anyway.