In 100 words or less, what have you gained or learned from this course?

My progress in this class went from uncertainty to discovery. I was unconvinced of my own philosophy. I started to realize my strengths and weaknesses and even learned that I have a unique voice. I learned to let go of my often-stubborn beliefs allowing me to learn by going through the often-hellish revisions of my assignments. My voice and thinking have developed significantly. I found myself focused on injustice and fair play in the world. Taking & retaking tests made me realize the improvements I needed in analytical, cohesive thinking. Taking an online course affords a student freedom and self-motivation.

Pam Coursey 12-11-06

PS: This was exactly 100 words without the title or my name & date at the end, and of course, this PS.

Discuss the difference between values and ethics.

Values are principles, standards, or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable, while Ethics are principles of right or good conduct or a body of such principles.

Every aspect of human behavior is governed by personal values. The definitions and interpretations differ from period to period, location to location, and situation to situation. Some human values have remained intact through centuries (i.e. courage) while others have declined (value of life).

Ethics are principles or standards of human conduct and are called morals. The moral regulation of behavior has been necessary to the society’s well-being. Morals were developed after religious taboos were violated by poor behavior (sins) and became habit or custom. Morals were formalized and made into arbitrary standards of conduct.

We should try our best to abide by the highest ethical standards and be quick to criticize when we fail or we see others fail to do the same.

Is it possible to judge another culture? Why or why not?

I believe everyone has personal preferences and prejudices. Cultural diversity is what makes humanity not so boring. It would be very sad if we were all alike. I think it is important to make difficult situation into an opportunity to learn how to provide culturally sensitive care. Of course, you may have opinions about a particular group of people, but that should be left aside if you are providing a service for the culturally different person. First off, if you do not speak someone’s language, you should find a good interpreter.
Different cultures have different beliefs. For instances, Muslim women are extremely modest, and Muslim families expect respect for that modesty and often ask for a female to always be present during a physicians examination. The Muslim faith considers the left hand unclean, so a pregnant patient would only wish to have your right hand touch her abdomen. The Islam faith fasts from sunrise to sunset during their holy month of Ramadan. Culturally sensitive care would have the health care provider prescribe a drug that could be taken only twice a day, once before dawn and once after sunset. Islam does allow exceptions to the fasting rules for the elderly or lactating women, but someone unfamiliar with the religion and culture might not know that. Also, knowledge of acceptable foods would be vital to providing culturally sensitive care. For instance, chicken and raisins are “cold” foods in the Puerto Rican community in New York. A woman who has just delivered a baby is encouraged to avoid “cold” foods in favor of “hot” foods, like corn meal or garlic.
Many healthcare workers may just throw their hands up in defeat when confronted with a patient who might seem noncompliant or difficult to understand. Prejudice is certainly a factor. This occurs when one person doesn’t understand another person’s heritage and generalizes about an entire culture. Communication and education is vital for respecting cultural diversity. There are language differences, verbal and nonverbal behaviors difficulties, and silence. Education to incorporate an awareness of cultural differences is a step in the right direction. People need to bring things up about different cultural matters so that others will be aware of our differences.

Explain and discuss the following claim by William James: “We have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready to call it false

William James was a pragmatist. He believed that what was true was good. James promotes life, health, and happiness. His concept of truth is that true ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. James rejects the idea that truth is static. He believes that "truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." He describes this by telling of a man who is lost in the woods and is starving. The man sees a cow path and reasons that it should lead to a farmer's house. If it does, he saves himself. This was an obvious and practical result for James.
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!

Explain and discuss the following claim by William James: “We have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready to call it false

William James was a pragmatist. He believed that what was true was good. James promotes life, health, and happiness. His concept of truth is that true ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we cannot. James rejects the idea that truth is static. He believes that "truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events." He describes this by telling of a man who is lost in the woods and is starving. The man sees a cow path and reasons that it should lead to a farmer's house. If it does, he saves himself. This was an obvious and practical result for James.
James states: "Truth for us is simply a collective name for verification processes, just as health, wealth, strength, etc. are names for other processes connected with life, and also pursued because it pays to pursue them. Truth is made, just as health, wealth, and strength are made, in the course of experience."
One of the most controversial statements of James is that "we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood." The simple reality is that today what we believe to be truth may be discarded tomorrow for a better truth, or a better description of the facts. Pragmatists conclude that pragmatism supports a relativity of truth position.
Looking at the opposite of truth, falsehood, James states that untrue beliefs work as harmfully in the long run as true beliefs work beneficially.
James tried to verify his theory of truth. When something is verified, it is known as truth.
James was someone who believed that he could find truth by the use of drugs and did experiment with substances that made him hallucinate. I totally disagree with the use of drugs for any purpose, other than to save a life. However, I am willing to believe that it may be proved that a drug such as marijuana is completely harmless and even good for a person to use in the future. I am a person who has “free will” and I still will make a choice not to partake in it.
I know that today alcohol is no better a substance than marijuana, but it is a legal drug. I make a choice not to partake of either as I truly believe that I was born with only so many brain cells and I believe that substance abuse destroys brain cells…..I need all of the brain cells I have!

Identify and discuss four of the six characteristics by which Velasquez distinguishes science from pseudoscience.

Science deals with natural phenomena that can be observed, measured, and tested. It is successful in dealing with problems within the limits of science. Scientific study is based upon the assumption that the universe is orderly, reasonable, and testable. A valid scientific theory offers a well-defined naturally occurring cause which explains why or how a natural event occurs. Theories are always subject to change. Science does not have the answers to all of the questions in the universe, or the solutions to all of human problems.

There are six criteria of science: Consistent, Observable, Natural, Predictable, Testable, and Tentative. The acronym "CONPTT" makes a good memory hook. 1. Consistency: The results of repeated observations concerning a naturally occurring event are the same when performed and repeated by proficient examiners. The evidence is also compatible with well-established observations and limits. 2. Observable: The event under study can be observed and explained. The observations are limited to the basic human senses or to extensions of the senses by such things as a microscope. 3. Natural: A natural cause must be used to explain why or how the naturally occurring event happens. Scientists may not use supernatural explanations as to why or how naturally occurring events happen because reference to the supernatural is outside of the realm of science. Scientists cannot conduct controlled experiments in which they have designed the intervention of a supreme being into the test. 4. Predictability: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event can be used to make predictions. Each prediction can be tested to determine if the prediction is true of false. 5. Testable: The natural cause of the naturally occurring event must be testable through the processes of science, controlled experimentation being essential. 6. Tentative: Scientific theories are subject to revision and correction, even to the point of the theory being proven wrong. Scientific theories have been modified and will continue to be modified to consistently explain observations of naturally occurring events.

Emerging science (protoscience) may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria, but falls short in one or more of the criteria. Mental telepathy could be considered as a "protoscience".

Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the
criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief systems.

False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science that is portrayed as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include astrology, parapsychology, paramid power, and UFO’s.

I ain’t that crazy about Manuel Velasquez and the writing of this book. 4 of his conclusions are scientific methods are made of empiricists (observations), rationalists (simplicity), and transcendental idealists (reasoning ideas into nature). He says scientific methods rely on inductive method of organization, generalization, and repeated confirmation by new observations. And, he says science can formulate a hypothesis that can guide research that can then be tested by observation. The theory must be falsifiable, that is, it must be able to make predictions.

In what way is Kant said to have wrought a Copernican revolution in knowledge?

Immanuel Kant brought together rationalism and empiricism, like Copernicus thought it out and decided the planets do not evolved around the earth. After Kant, nobody discussed the reality or knowledge without being aware of the role of the human mind in constructing reality and knowledge.

Kant found that rationalists do not trust their senses, although his way of thinking was that human must trust their senses. Rationalists also believed in reasoning to provide knowledge, which does not always work.

Kant found empiricists had no innate ideas. Empiricists tend to think general or complex ideas are derived by abstraction from simple ideas. We can think hard, but we will never escape the innate constraints of our minds.
Thus, according to Kant:
Both rationalism and empiricism claimed we can know things in themselves, and both were wrong.
Rationalists were wrong not to trust senses; in the phenomenal world, senses are all we have.
Rationalists were right about innate ideas, like Descartes’ in argument of the wax.
Hume was wrong when he claimed the concept of self is unsupported by senses.
Hume was wrong when he said that the future will resemble the past is due only to custom & habit”.
Hume was wrong when he says the source of our morality is our feelings. Morality links the noumenal (real) and phenomenal (apparent) worlds. Kant argues that if morality is real, then human freedom is real. So, humans are not merely creatures of the phenomenal world.

I’m still sticking to my females “guns!”

Compare and contrast a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Give examples of each.

The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used among philosophers to refer to two different types of knowledge. They are adjectives that describe knowledge. It is common to italicize "a priori" and "a posteriori" since they derive from Latin phrases. “A priori” means what comes before and "a posteriori" means what comes after.
Kant provided three areas of knowledge (synthetic statements) that go beyond our sensory perception. 1.)Arithmetic for example: “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” “The square of the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle must always equal the sum of the square of the other two sides.” “The sum of 798 plus 857 must always equal 1655.” 2.)Natural Science: “All events must always have a cause.” 3.)Philosophical metaphysics: “There must exist a Gad that causes the universe.” These statements are also called "a priori" sinse they go beyond sensory experience and we assume the statements must be true “common sense.”

By contract, "a posteriori" are established by sensory observations such as “The room is empty” or “The sky is blue.” These statements are neither necessary nor universal.

I think I will just rely on my female intuition.

Is atheism more or less rational than agnosticism? Is it more or less virtuous? Why?

For some unknown reason I have always thought that agnostics were just a little more honest than atheists. It seems that everyone believes in God when they are in really serious pain and think they could possibly die. I suppose God gives people hope.

Saying 'There is no God' is stating a fact about the world. God doesn't exist and anyone who thinks he does is wrong. Saying 'I don't believe God exists' is stating a fact that is a bit less confrontational, more open to being wrong (which I may be, as may you, as may anyone's point of view).

Atheists believe we all know there is no God, while Agnostics claim we don’t know whether God exists or He does not exist. Agnostics question everything!

We are all talented i.e. virtuous. Some of us are courageous, while other have patience. Some people can play musical instruments, while others can speak in front of groups. The questions “Is it more or less virtuous to be an atheist or an agnostic?” I just think that it is way harsher to say that God totally does not exist. I can understand someone questioning God. We all do that.
I just hate labels.

Present and evaluate the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is reconciling a good God with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing. The symbol for the Ying Yang is black and white which makes me believe there is just as much good as bad in the world today. Some people believe that if a being is not totally pure, evil will fill in any gaps in that being's purity. There are potential benefits of suffering in the world. And what about an omnipotent God giving the world any benefits derived from suffering without people having to suffer?
I feel I am so blessed to have a beautiful, talented daughter. She is just as good as she is bad. It seems good or bad is just a matter of perspective. I have a pit bull dog that I find to be sweet and loving, but my neighbors fear him because of all the bad press they have heard about him.
John Hicks, in our text asserts that maybe since humans can’t reach the glory of what Jesus Christ was on this earth as the perfect man, we all are a little “rough around the edges!”
I’ve contemplated just exactly why was it that God had to destroy his earth by having a flood. It was all about how evil earth had become. But didn’t that same God allow angels to have sex with earthlings? Another thing that I always say is, “Isn’t God manic depressive since all that really means is that you have highs and lows?” Also, why is it that God choses to have a favorite people i.e. Israel? Why does God make mistakes if he is supposed to be perfect? My momma sent me away for the dinner table many an evening because of questions like these. She thinks all will be known once you get to heaven. That heaven thing is another thing that really ticks my off too! I guess I just don’t get the motivation!

Explain and discuss Ayer’s distinction between matters of fact and relations of ideas.

A logical positivist, Alfred J. Ayers, British philosopher claims only analytic and synthetic statements are meaningful and that because metaphysical and ethical statements are neither, the latter are meaningless. Meaningful propositions are divided into two classes “relations of ideas” and “matter of fact.” The “relations of ideas” involves mathematics, analytical, and logical thinking. This thinking solves problems by determining the use of symbols in a certain fashion. The “matter of fact” or empirical view can only be proved as hypotheses, are possibly probable but never certain. A possible sense-experience should be relevant in determining a truth or falsehood. And some things are neither true or false and are therefore, senseless.

Ayer defends emotions by claiming that moral disputes are in fact disputes about “matters of fact” rather than disputes about values. Tautogies and first-person observations can be dismissed as nonsense.It can be difficult to defend this movement. It offers a powerful vision of the possibilities for modern knowledge.

How do you know what is real and what is not?

How do you know what is real and what is not? Specifically, how do you know that dreams are only dreams and that there are no such things as ghosts? In answering these questions, draw upon and demonstrate some understanding of the views of George Berkeley and Rene Descartes.

Descartes believed that the body was material and the mind was immaterial. His thoughts were that humans were the only animals who use the spoken language. This kind of reminds me of the comedian Ron White. He states, (not word for word) you can get your eyes fixed to total perfection, have your teeth whitened to perfection, and have the most remarkable plastic surgery…….But, you can’t fix stupid!

Berkeley believed that all we know are our on sensations and ideas to be real. He believed this to be the “will of God.” This is called idealism. It is broken down into two different things. What we actually see is called “objective”. What someone else tells us is “subjective.” Nurses use this is writing their nurses notes daily.

Believing in your self, being drug-free, and having confidence in your skills and abilities is real. Dreams are important, even mire day-dreams. In order to have goals and to be able to select your destiny, you must have dreams. Who knows if sleep dreams or ghosts are real? I’ve never had a dream come true, nor seen a ghost. However, I do not doubt that for someone else, they aren’t real.

For me, my brain is all I am. I have a child and I am constantly, daily telling her to take good care of her mind because it is all she is. My main focus is to keep her drug-free, just as I have been my whole life.

Discuss determinism and libertarianism. What questions must each answer?

Determinism is the idea that every event is obliged by precussor events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The ancients believed this idea became subject to clarification and analysis in the 18th century. Determinism is connected with our understanding of science and with our views about human freedom.

We humans do not have the ability to change the laws of natures nor the capability to changed the past. So, in what sense can we attribute our freedom of choice in our lives? We can learn from our past mistakes, apply it to our lives to make our lives better from previous experiences we have encountered. We also study history in order to learn from past mistakes. Again, if you keep giving the same thing, you keep getting the same thing.

Human libertarianism takes this idea to its extreme, proposing to make liberty the only interest that a state may properly have with respect to its citizens. Is the libertarian interest different to the existence of the state? It has serious implications for the viewpoint of law as well as for moral and political philosophy. Libertarianism is the opposite of determinism in that the liberal view is that humans are the exception to the rules when it comes to nature. We humans have free choice.

If we are essentially free, how can that freedom lead to uncertainty? Making libertarianism a general right is to prevent governments from forcing people to do things. Helping to set people free is something we may or may not wish to do. If liberty a value to be pursued, then governments and individuals could feel free to compel some people in order to promote freedom for others.

Analyze and discuss Desmond Morris’s claim that even apparently altruistic behavior is genetically self-interested.

Doing this lesson, I was certain that there is no way that any behavior I have is self-interested. But yet again, I was wrong. My genes and yours are interested in survival, thus therefore are selfish. Evolution and life itself is heartless, mindless, and cruel. But how can this be? Everything we see in life is so magnificent. It is all a part of the exquisitely ingenious design, just like your body finding it’s way back to a normal temperature after an infection. Scientist and engineers have reversed engineered genomes and understand now that they are selfish.

Genes do not have minds, but they have attitude! This attitude promotes replication. They copy again and again and again. And then there is man, a creature that can understand all this and actually try and make sense of it. Our man can learn from his past mistakes, his ancestors, his culture, and his language.

John 3:8 reads The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit. It is okay if my genes are selfish. Christ died for my sins. His divine nature is united with my spirit. This is why I chose to let go of my flesh, and let God work his perfect art! Trying to solve this riddle of Desmond Morris’s claim is like trying to capture the wind.

Discuss Socrates’ claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Discuss Socrates’ claim that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”


Socrates seems to ask incessant questions that are very annoying to whomever he is conversing with. Socrates makes the other person feel like he is questioning his or her intelligence. And now I wonder how intelligent I will appear to my reader, but that never stopped me before.


“The unexamined life is not worth living” makes me think of my minister talking about life’s trials. He said if you aren’t facing hard trials in your life, you are not doing something right. Unlike others of my Baptist faith, I believe I was born with an ability to know right from wrong. I also believe there is not one of us “earthlings” who is worthy of standing in the presence of God. My conscious bothers me when I do a wrong thing. But still, I have prayed a prayer, “God, please show me what is wrong with me.” And, He did and does.


It’s as if there is a “blind spot.” I wonder what is it that I am missing. I just cannot see my own “hind end.” So, then I asked my friend, “Why is it that you didn’t invite me to your home for the party?”


She said, “Well, Pam, you know you are loud. Sometimes I just feel that you take over the entire conversation.” She was right and I cried.


Socrates’ statement is very strong and true. Examining our lives helps us understand the subconscious programming. If we cannot learn from our past mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. How can we expect to get a different outcome, if we continue to do the same thing again and again?


Why do we believe what we believe (which includes assumptions, prejudices and convictions)? We must examine the process of our beliefs to determine what influences our thinking and the motivations of our actions. We all possess unorganized opinions and assumptions. We must take time to scrutinize, re-formulate and organize our beliefs into a coherent, meaningful and practical view of right and wrong. From this deliberate process, we can frame our life view, set our goals, and conduct our lives worth living.

Two objections to the categorical imperative

Identify and discuss two objections to the categorical imperative. (Be sure to begin with a brief description of the position.)

I used to make a joke when I’d say, “Do unto others, then split!” The C.I. is just doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing! It is a human being’s duty. Kant made an inference to “the moral law within us,” and also said that he had to limit knowledge in order to make room for faith. Let’s don't forget that he was a Lutheran by upbringing and that his categorical imperative comes very close to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The categorical imperative isn't actually a categorical imperative. It is a premise that a person chooses to be rational and moral. Simply put, you love others as you love yourself. It is also a matter of what you are than a matter of what you do, i.e. a loving being. What’s that old saying though, there is matter and doesn’t matter. As to why anyone should choose to be rational, I have no idea. I do think it is entirely possible to be too rational for one's own good. That's the bad news. The good news is that by assuming that 'being rational' equates with 'being objective,' you can solve all sorts of rationality problems, i.e. emotional instability. Kant says, “Could you will to have your maxim serve as the universal law? If not, then you should not act on that maxim.” A maxim (how you act) is a subjective (something you feel) principle or rule that the will of an individual uses in making a decision. Just because the majority feel something is right, doesn’t mean it is right for everyone. William Butler Yeats wrote of a 'Great Memory,' which he believed is the subconscious in which humans preserve past memories. For some of us, I believe it is innate to do the right thing. But then again, I have teenager and sometimes I feel like a “doormat.” I guess this is something that I have consented to. If you allow someone to mistreat you, I suppose the theory is you deserved it.

One objection by Friedrick Nietsche to Kant’s morals theory is to impose his own values placed on us. Then there is the Master (power)/Slave (weak) objection. Some people think everything should be handed to them, while others believe in survival of the fittest. I personally think we should turn and look at the bible. Doesn’t it say someplace in there to work to the best of your ability? My family’s values are to work hard and to play even harder.

“A Beautiful Mind” Schizophrenia Disorder

John Nash, the primary character is played by Russell Crowe in Ron Howard's non-fictional 2001 account of “A Beautiful Mind.” Nash suffers with a disorder called schizophrenia, which makes him see and interact with people that only he can see, because they are fabrications of his imagination. Nash faces a problem, yet he is able to overcome his difficulties and even wins the Nobel Prize! The awe-inspiring message of this film is that people can get better, and they often do.

Nash attended Princeton University in the 1940s. A member of the Department of Defense, Parcher appoints him to scanning major U.S. periodicals to look for coded messages from the Russians hidden in the articles. Nash works 24 hours a day, reading and rereading publications such as "The New York Times" until he marks up thousands of clippings and post them all around his home and office. Nash is involved in a secret mission. Parcher warns him not to tell of his work to anyone -- not even his wife. But when his wife does discover his work, things take a mind-bending turn. Nash is ultimately diagnosed with incurable schizophrenia and finally decides to confront his demons--no matter how hard this may be. This movie draws us into the perspective of Nash, so we, like him, believe the illusions he sees. Because we see things from his perspective, we empathize with him and learn to have compassion on people who have this disease. It was nice to see a healthy marriage for once in a film. There is an overtone of eastern philosophy in the film, which allows the viewer to believe that all power to overcome is from within.

People with psychological disorders are treated in society very poorly. People do not understand mental illness, therefore are frightened for what they do not know. Often times, people with psychological disorders experience stigmas, prejudices, and discrimination because they tend to be different. Most illnesses nowadays can be managed with medication, and the person who is diagnosed can live a fairly normal life if given half a chance. “A Beautiful Mind” is truly a masterpiece. It provides truth that people CAN and often DO get better. This film is truly a gift and has my vote with 5 gold stars.

Work Cited

Howard, Ron. “A Beautiful Mind.” 2001

“Super-Size Me” Gluttonous People

A filmmaker named Morgan Spurlock is on a mission to eat at McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch, and supper for thirty days. There are no exceptions to this rule, not even vitamin tablets. He must eat all items on the menu once; and every time he is asked if he wants it “super sized,” he must say yes (although he doesn’t ask for it.) He also limits exercise to only walking. Of course, he gains weight. Our government has over-educated us in regard to health issues, yet Americans are consistently making poor food choices. He commits to this month-long binge as an experiment for a documentary film about obesity in America. Also, I do mean “binge” as he tosses his McCookies in the film.

The overall message of the movie is that McDonald’s is not the blame for our nation’s obesity issues, but fast food companies do advertise heavily on our complacent population. “Super Size Me” brings this advertising to the attention of the viewer. It supports personal responsibility to maintain one’s health, and it reveals that fast food companies do not serve our best interests. Their best interest is to make money.

Spurlock gains approximately thirty pounds. His health rapidly declines at his weekly physical exams revealing alarming results of his McDiet. He travels the country visiting food corporation big-dogs, dietary specialists, schools, regular people, and as many McDonald’s restaurants as possible, and the documentary is humorous. He also finds that many schools serve much more boxed lunches than fresh foods due to convenience, not cost.

There is nudity and offensive language in the film, as it is in many films nowadays. And there is irreverence to Christians and intentional mocking of Jesus Christ through some of the imagery.
What is the attitude we should have for our good health? Most people have learned by 2nd grade about the food groups and what is healthy and what is not. And can you eat anything you like, as long as it is in moderation? When you chose not to eat properly, your arteries clog and fat easily stores in your body. This can result in a heart attach, stroke, or even death. God gave humanity plants and animals to eat (Genesis 1:29; 9:3); however these gifts of food and drink should be used wisely, and not abused through excess. The Bible warns against gluttony. God expects us to care for our bodies.

On the film’s extras on the DVD, it is stated that it is predicted that obesity will replace smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death in America. Americans are leaving this earth before their time, and this film communicates this well. The film shows the effects of poor eating habits and ultimately it is the consumer’s responsibility to eat healthier. It also reveals that eating foods that cannot be digested are sold in McDonald’s can actually have the same effects on the liver and other organs as heavy alcohol consumption does. This movie shows startling evidence that fast food has an addictive quality because most of it is loaded with sugar! All fast food patrons should view this movie, but children might have a hard time understanding it. There is a scene of pretty graphic surgery so parents might want to watch first then show it to the kids with the fast forward on hand, but older kids would surely benefit.

What can Americans do to prevent obesity? I suppose, more education is necessary. We are a rich nation and lucky to have so many choices in foods and drinks. It seems such an ironic revelation when I try to eat right, and I find that the “good for you” foods taste much better. I guess it is all about our habits and what we value most in our life. I would rate this movie with 3 stars.

Work Cited

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, New International Version. Chattanooga. AMG Publishers,1984.

“Antwone Fisher” Troubling Behavior

“Antwone Fisher” is a movie with a strong depiction of caring men. Denzel Washington's role as Antwone's father figure/psychiatrist is heartwarming. Antwone's foster mother portrayal was demonic; however a viewer feels compassion for both the victim and the beast of a mother. Antwone has various psychological issues including a disturbing childhood that still torments him. The film seems to have omitted violent and sexual scenes. The story itself contains extreme violence and inappropriate sexual situations, but they are only suggested. The movie teaches a strong pro-family message. There is a sweet romance between two young people that is not centered on sexual attraction. Antwone's search inspires us to think about anger and bitterness within our spirits. This movie helps us to us understand the balance of suffering and triumph.

Antwone Fisher, is a 24-year-old sailor who get in fights. He is demoted and sent to see staff psychiatrist Jerome Davenport. Antwone does not want to talk about him or what is eating at him. However, the psychiatrist is patient and eventually the sailor begins to open up. He explains that he was born in prison after his father was murdered. Mrs. Tate, a disciplinarian and preacher’s wife who did not like them and often beat them, raised him and two brothers.
The beatings and intimidation were horrible for Antwone, and he also experienced sexual abuse at the hands of an older girl. This has left him unsure of how to act around young women his age, although he does date. Antwone gets closer to the psychiatrist and his wife, although that begins to make the psychiatrist worry that Antwone is becoming too dependent.

Antwone’s quest is to find his real family and let them know how he feels about them, himself and both the past and present. After some resistance and more sessions with the psychiatrist, Antwone and his girlfriend find his mother, Eva. I would give this movie 5 stars.