Islamic Fasting and Christian Season of Lent Essay

Islamic Fasting and Christian Season of Lent - Essay Example This paper provides a detailed summary of the Christian Lenten season compared to Islam's fasting season. The two religions exhibit similarities and differences in various ways and pose different impacts on the respective religions. Ash Wednesday is the first day that Christians use to mark the period in western Christianity. The main purpose of Ash Wednesday is to remind us that lent is present, and we need to make an effort to acquire a close relationship to God through repenting. This is realization that God truly loves us because he died for us. The cross of ashes on one's forehead represents that Jesus does forgive all sins. Ash Wednesday is also a reminder that all people need God’s help, and it is a symbol that Jesus will help us (Allen 9). The period of Lent begins forty days before Easter and culminates in Easter Sunday. The Sundays are not inclusive in the forty days since God intended them for resting. Christians observe this period of Easter by fasting and repentin g their sins. The church has set this period aside to give Christians a chance to reflect on the sacrifice, life, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. Roman Catholics, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist comprise the churches that observe Lent. The Churches of Eastern Orthodox observe the Great Lent during the 40 days that precede Palm Sunday. Their practice of fasting continues during the holy week of Orthodox Easter. The Orthodox churches do not observe Ash Wednesday and their Lent season begins on Clean Monday (Allen 15). During this period, the Christians have an obligation to give up things they do regularly or make themselves righteous by praying frequently and doing meritorious deeds. Giving up meat is a sacrifice that Christians exercise. Fasting should enable Christians to become better people by sacrificing themselves for the benefit of other people. Giving up meats on Fridays is a form of sacrifice that represents the death, suffering, and sacrifice t hat Jesus went through during the time of his persecution (Allen 39). The Stations of the Cross’ are a significant part that Catholics partake in during the Lenten season. This is the practice that commemorates the journey of the death of Jesus. The stages presents all events that took place before the soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross. The steps remind us of the amount of suffering that Jesus endured. The priest reads the fourteen parts or other individuals act them. The Lent season provides us with renewal of hope. It encourages us during hardships and tragic experiences (Allen 51). Lent is a fulfilling season for Catholics since it a person’s relationship with God closer. People consider Lent to be a source of warming in their lives. This is because it is during this period that the relationship between one and God strengthens. The critical part of lent and the basis of the Lenten season is the intrinsic feeling inside a person. This feeling makes one feel scrupulo us about doing an admirable deed. It teaches people to help other without expecting anything in return (Allen 77). The best part of Lenten season is that it enables us to draw closer to God through temporary sacrifice that we make. It gives Christians a chance to balance between cutting themselves off marvellous things and fasting. This season gives us hope that God will guide us during hardships and tragedies. We attain hope of guidance from God through the fact that Jesus resurrected and thus conquered death. The same way, God will assist us conquer tragedies and hardships. The worst part of the Lenten season is that it interferes with ones day to day life activities. People accidentally

History of mordern political thought Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

History of mordern political thought - Essay Example ..But mostly he wrote about politics. He was mad about politics. He says in one of his letters that he had to talk about it; he could talk of nothing else...The Prince is scarcely more than a pamphlet, a very minor fraction of its author's work, but it overshadows all the rest...Everyone recognizes "Machiavellian" as an adjective for political conduct that combines diabolical cunning with a ruthless disregard for moral standards...The Prince contradicts everything else Machiavelli ever wrote and everything we know about his life.... The notion that The Prince is what it pretends to be, a scientific manual for tyrants, has to contend not only against Machiavelli's life but against his writings... The standard explanation has been that in the corrupt conditions of sixteenth-century Italy only a prince could create a strong state capable of expansion. The trouble with this is that it was chiefly because they widened their boundaries that Machiavelli preferred republics. In the Discorsi he wrote, "We know by experience that states have never signally increased either in territory or in riches except under a free government. The cause is not far to seek, since it is the well-being not of the individuals but of the community which makes the state great, and without question this universal well-being is nowhere secured save in a republic.... Popular rule is always better than the rule of princes." (1958) Machiavelli was a nationalist, a political scientist, a scholar and a staunch republican. About the most pro-monarchic view that could possibly be ascribed to him is that a Prince might be the best way to unify Italy. Machiavelli began by writing satire of the corrupt leaders of Italy such as the Medicis, making bare their horrible and destructive ambitions, but he also created modern political science simultaneously. This paper will analyze precisely how The Prince is in fact brilliant political science. Modern political science takes something for granted that class ical analyses of politics and law would have found preposterous: Analyses of what governments actually do and how to efficently carry out objectives are just as valuable as analyses of what governments should do. The Prince describes how princes actually behave and how they should behave if they want to be effective, not if they want to be moral. The Prince opens up in a rather startling way for a philosophy book about politics and law: It describes what principalities there are (Chapter I). He goes on to distinguish separate types of rule for hereditary and mixed principalities (Chapter II and III). The Prince is proceeding with simple, clear analyses, breakdowns and categories. Filling The Prince is distinct analysis of history of the Greeks and Romans, what a modern political scientist would call a case study, providing support for his claims. Take his analysis of Nabis in Chapter IX. â€Å"Nabis, Prince of the Spartans, sustained the attack of all Greece, and of a victorious Ro man army, and against them he defended his country and his government; and for the overcoming of this peril it was only necessary for him to make himself secure against a few, but this would not have been sufficient if the people had been hostile...[G]ranted a prince who has established himself as above, who can command, and is a man of courage, undismayed in adversity, who does not fail in other qualifications, and who, by his resolution and energy, keeps the whole people encouraged — such a one will never find himself deceived in them, and it will be shown that