Fahrenheit 452 Analysis

Fahrenheit 9/11, creates many good points and provides the public with an inside look into the corruption of George Bush’s presidency and what could have possibly led to the attacks on 9/11. However, the documentary overall argument is extremely weak. It is not convincing to anyone, other than those already suspicious of Bush’s involvement in 9/11, because of the ineffective ways of argument shown throughout the film.

“One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs” (17). The concept of having faith in a higher power or a set religious belief is meaningless to some Christians. Many people view religion, and Christianity in particular, as unsupported and unaccommodating. Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but it is also more logical than unbelief itself according to authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Geisler and Turek guide the readers through some of the traditional, more well-known arguments for the existence of God our creator. They move into an investigation of the source of morality and how reliable the New Testament is in regard to the accounts of Jesus.


“He said he could treat her physiologically, but had no idea how to help her become a mother.”

Documentaries are produced in such a way that positions the audience to accept a version of reality. As Tim Hetherington, a British photojournalist once said, “You can construct whatever story you want to. Documentaries are constructions, as is all journalism.” In Fahrenheit 9/11 specifically, viewers are presented with a critical analysis of the political agenda surrounding America’s decision to wage war on Iraq. Directed by American political commentator and filmmaker Michael Moore and released in mid-2004, the documentary’s central premise is that US President George Bush is, and has been from the start of his term, unfit for office and does not act in interests of the American public. Moore presents the idea that President Bush, as a result

Ozzie is a curious child that wants real answers to real questions and the people in his life don’t want him to questions things so close to their heart. Both Ozzie’s mother and Rabbi Binder don’t want Ozzie to question the Jewish doctrine. When Ozzie pressured Rabbi Binder on the actual physical possibilities of things like virgin birth

The use of juxtaposition between the two films, Fahrenheit 911, and Fahrenhype 911, help my understanding by developing a comparison between the two films which helps me analyze the ideas that are being presented in each film. Both films use statistics, interviews, news footage, and clippings from newspaper to try and convince the viewer of their own biases.

Throughout the story it is clear that Ozzie does not mind going outside normal expectations for behavior. There are many examples where he asks questions that a typical adolescent would not ask. An example from the text says, “But making light…. I mean when you think about it, it’s really something,” Ozzie said. “Anyway, I asked Binder if He could make all that in six days, and He could pick the six days he wanted right out of nowhere, why couldn’t He let a woman have a

During the course of the story the inquisitiveness of Ozzie is prevalent, as well as, his unique ability to draw attention to hypocrisies. On three separate occasions, Roth depicts that Ozzie wants to know something different. On the first occasion he inquired how Rabbi Binder could refer to the Jews as “The Chosen People” when the Declaration of Independence claims that all men are created equal (Roth 72). The Rabbi tried to delineate political equality verse spiritual legitimacy to him; however Ozzie disregarded it, insisting that what he wanted to know was different. The suggestion Roth makes here is that Ozzie wanted to know why being

In this week’s reading, Roberts deconstructs the myths, legends, and theologies surround the Immaculate Conception and birth of Jesus. He

In the allegory of the cave Plato tries to show us two scenarios where the prisoners experience emotional and intellectual revelations throughout their lives. Plato’s theory was that the ones who truly understand knowledge should guide the ignorant people out of their unenlightened states of being and into true knowledge. The cave symbolizes the people who think that knowledge come from what they see and hear in the world. It also indicates people that make assumptions about life based on the substantial things they experience through hearing and seeing. Plato’s main focus was to convey a story to the world about the difference between beliefs and truth. Anyone can believe in something they see, but that belief is really just a shadow of the truth.

• Over the next century, there were many unsuccessful attempts at making an accurate thermometer.

As an introduction, I will be writing about a paradox in the Bible itself to question the evidences of the Bible. After that, my paper will discuss about the historical paradox between the Bible and the actual history. For example, Esther, a queen introduced in the Old Testament, did not actually exist. Now main streams of the Christianity believe that the book of Esther is a historical novel to enlighten the public or a story based on certain person in the history. However, there are many paradoxes between the story of the book and the history. Although many people insist that we should not interpret the Bible directly, having a protagonist that did not even exist in the history causes a question about if the Bible is real. In addition to

A prestigious debate was taking place at a small university between two professors. Both claim to be Christian. Licona, fully believes in the bible, and the other, Martin, questions it to be true. I’m not sure why Dr. Martin even believes in God. He denies the Resurrection, the reliability of the gospels, and is severely skeptical of everything he reads. Yet he adheres to his childhood faith even though he does not believe it for factual reasons. He is a fideism actually living the genetic fallacy! He seems to have been severely compromised by his time at Yale and the highly liberal and umber critical scholarship prevalent there. How in the world can one be a Christian without accepting the bodily resurrection of Christ? He is a prime example of how scholars develop pet theories from over analyzing texts and then embrace sweeping conclusions, being drawn into those conclusions by the predispositions of their needs. One gets the distinct feeling that Dr. Martin is looking for reasons to deny Christ and the resurrection.

"I want to make a baby, right here, right now. I want a girl. I want to tell her how she was conceived on our wedding night.”

His mother was breathing hard and couldn 't wait any longer. "John, I 'm teaching you how babies are made. I can 't do that if we use a condom and i 'm differently not on any birth control."