My view on lent:

My biggest problem with lent is the public display of fasting which is contrary to scripture: Matthew 6:16-18

Just as well, overhearing discussions of humble brags, “oh man, this is so hard fasting from x” while displaying ashes on one’s forehead seems overtly contrary to scripture. Again, Matthew 6:16-18 is clear.
Additionally it has been my experience that repentance and fasting lose much of their substance for those practicing the tradition.

However....
We cannot oversimplify and call lent a “Roman Catholic invention” or a “pagan” practice given its presence, minimally the term, in the early church with people like Athanasius.
In the modern conception: Advent is to Christmas what lent is to Easter. While asceticism is removed and shallow tradition enters into the practice, this can happen in most everything.
My biggest issue with lent, again, is not the concept but the public proclamations of fasting and what seems to be shallow understandings of fasting and repentance.
We do not “fast” from sins once a year, but we mortify daily. Fasting is, traditionally, abstaining from food and drink for the purpose of a heightened, humble, awareness of dependency upon God.
Additionally, we do not merely repent once a year but are to have a lifestyle of repentance.

Just the same; Fasting can be practiced anytime of the year, especially coupled with deep and meaningful repentance. It’s a rich practice.
This is all to say, lent can be practiced and practiced well with good benefit.

At the same time, lent is not required for any believer.

So long as we retain the necessity of taking up the cross daily, and not showcasing fasting, I have no problem with lent.
This is to say, if you practice lent - make it deep, and genuine. Do not grumble, moan, or showcase your fasting

Contrary to some who say, “display your ashes for the day,” why don’t you obey Jesus and begin Ash Wednesday by washing your face immediately as you begin your fast?

More from For later read

Ester Ranzen/ Childline/BBC/Saville/Mandelson 👀👇


1. 'MYSTERIOUS ESTHER RANTZEN' ..2017
https://t.co/aBsJL2Avqd


2. (Let's This Party Started) Keith Vaz and Ester Ranzen.


3. 'BBC'S ESTHER RANTZEN LINKED TO ELM GUEST HOUSE' https://t.co/a064KgW8LJ


4. Esther Rantzen is quizzed about Jimmy Savile - 2012
Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?


I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.

explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?

An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.

The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"