Frank Peretti--The Chair
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 жов 2006
- Philosophical lecture concerning a fixed point of reference. Relativism, subjectivism, and absolutism. Quirky, even strange, but funny; Frank Peretti, Christian author explains it well in this short taken from the full length version.
Frank Peretti is one of the best writers to ever live!
"this Present Darkness" and "The Oath" are the best books i ever read... and its mostly about mystery and how things get in with believing and caring... WOOT!
I've read many of his books and enjoyed them all! Thanks for commenting! I appreciate what you had to say!
who to thought the author of This Present Darkness was so colorful? interesting concept here. love this guy's novels.
Mr. Peretti is a genius, I would love to sit in on one of his lectures.
I met this guy when he gave the same talk in 2003. He is wacky, but fun and poignant, and his lectures are grand fun.
He is my hero in writing. I wish I could meet him sometime. I'd like him to read some of my manuscripts. I've adopted a writing style much like his.
Thanks for posting!
I just heard this very lecture on Focus on the Family radio show this week but I missed the beginning so it was great to be able to see it and get a visual of what he is like. He is quirky but he sure gets his point across. Love his books too!
Thank you so much!
If we are unable to use our own standards, we really don't know which standards to go by. The only thing that would matter, is if the reference point outside yourself & is unchanging. We can be the only one that is the authority when it comes to which action is the best one.
It was recorded at the Steeling the Mind conference through Compass International. Google and you'll find the website where you can order the DVD. The rest of the talk expands on it and is excellent. I highly recommend it. As a biblical counselor, I've used this many times to help people understand where their sense of value and worth needs to come from, our one and only eternally fixed point of reference, God.
True...in which case the point of reference isn't fixed. If we define it, then it doesn't meet the requirements Frank laid out. Self defining, self existent, and immovable or unchanging. God's Word is the standard by which He defines Himself. It doesn't change, neither does He. That is a fixed point of reference. It is good to compare it to others for many reasons. To show them theirs isn't fixed and to build the faith of other believers whose faith needs to increase.
I am in a play with this guy, he is so awesome to act beside. amazing.
Most people today, Christian or not, have no grasp on basic logic and worldview issues. Frank does a great job at taking something that most people find difficult to understand and putting it in language that is easier to comprehend.
Second off, it would seem that you are implying that Frank Peretti or those who learned from his presentation actually think, “This Present Darkness” is “living gospel” as opposed to “pulp Christianity”.
I really enjoyed This Present Darkness
piercing the darkness was my favorite of his books, the visitation was also very good.
This video is SO awesome!! Any way we can see the whole thing? EVERY teenager should watch it.
it will always be "This Present Darkness" for me. reading that book changed my idea of how the unseen battle in the heavenlies spills out into the physical world. spiritural warfare became interesting to me.
I love frank peretti. I wish I could meet him ^_^
He reminds me of Doc Emmett Brown from Back to the Future. LOL He's got those funny sound effects too.
frank peretti and ted dekker are some of my favorite authors too!
i love frank peretti, him and ted dekker are my favorite authors:)
The fact of the matter is that Frank himself has refuted unequivocally; “This Present Darkness” is a fictional representation and is not intended to be taken literally; rather it is meant figuratively, in the sense that we are involved in spiritual warfare. Not that angles and demons can hack wings from each other or anything quite so trite.
Best Christian author.
Gotcha! In that case, the implication is one of making firm as in the metal just as you stated.
:-)
Keep up the good content🤓
You're welcome. I think he's great too!
This whole thing is great. You can actually order it on dvd from Compass International. I did and it is awesome. It wasnt cheap but it was worth it. Really makes you think.
I like Peretti. He acts alot like Doc Brown from Back to the Future. LOL
@mrchaucer
and soda would differ your ability to perceive what is right and wrong, but I do see how alcohol or drugs could impair your judgement, preventing your ability to think critically about a situation, and its outcomes.
It is sort of like saying the following:
Premise A: “There are clouds in the sky.”
Premise B: “It is raining.”
Conclusion: “Therefore, whenever there are clouds in the sky, it rains.”
You can see how this association fallacy contradicts the law of the excluded middle. Just because two things have something in common does not make them the same.
I've watched this whole talk SO many times...it never gets old...and never loses its relevance. Frank rocks. 'Specially when he pretends to be a chicken. :P
The statement is true. if I decide to kill a person for little or no reason, or reason at all, it is an immoral decision, I think we can all agree on that. I am hurting another person, and I am also taking a toll, psychologically.
And what examples are these? Considering the Ten Commandments all revolve around the concept of thinking of others and yourself, I don't really see what examples exist.
No new books for 4 years. Rely hope he hasn't given up. Heard he was going to make a third darkness book.
good author
@mrchaucer
I'm an atheist, so yes. But I don't know that very many Christians believe that God is a part of themselves, I've come to see that in most cases, God is considered a separate entity.
Do you know how I could find a fuller version of this lecture?
I don't know that I agree with much of anything in this entire speech, but I've seen the whole thing, and YES, it's actually amazing. One of the most riveting speech deliveries I think I've ever seen. I'd like to watch the whole thing again, if I could. Very memorable, just exceptional delivery. Some of the content outright repels me, some of it has me rolling my eyes in a mixture of disgust or even derision at the inaccuracy or misleading nature. But I still deem this a masterpiece speech.
If you can carry the chair around then it is no longer 'fixed'. The requirements for something to be a fixed point of reference include: 1. It is seperate from you/me. 2. It doesn't move/change. 3. It is not dependent upon anyone/anything else for definition or existence. Where I am is ONLY determined by where the chair is IF the chair is immovable. Otherwise I am just wandering around carrying a chair, fooling myself into believing I know where I'm at!
No new books for 4 years. Rely hope he hasn't given up.
..there is something or someone outside of me, that will not change in the future that says X is wrong. It matters little if the consensus say it is or isn't or even if there are man-made laws that say it is or it isn't. It exists as wrong because there is an authority that states it as such.That authority is only dependable if it is outside of me and it doesn't change. Otherwise, it could be my ID, or ego, etc. and my change in understanding could be due to the pizza and soda I had last night.
@SongofSongs8
2/2
can reasonably say that they are good people, though they may have committed sin in their lives. People go through their lives making choices every day, that do not constitute sin. I'm not disagreeing that there are some sick people in the world with ill will, but without a doubt, there are more good than bad. Yesterday, tsunamis hit Japan; will we donate and lend help as a species, or lend no help? When I watch those things, I come to tears, and so do most people I know.
@TwentyYearDenial (1)
You make some very good points. First off, I just want to clear my position by what I mean by a sinful nature. I'm not saying that everyone is evil because everyone is sinful or that there are not a whole lot of good people in the world, because there are. But how can we know if there are more good than bad in the world? You asked the question, "If the majority of people make bad choices, why isn't the world in worse condition?" Firstly, couldn't one also ask, "If the...
WOW!!! I read his book House w/ Ted Dekker and its sooooooooooo different from this...
where can I find the rest of this????
@SongofSongs8
Also, the Bible lays out Christianity in a way different than other religions. It goes through history, real people, places, and times to reveal God's character, love, mercy, justice, and power. It proves it's worth by passing the test of time and being relevant to all people of every time and place. It is not restricted to the Biblical times, but is relevant and useful to this modern culture, and to this day and age as well.
@mrchaucer
Bad things happening to good people? That's not an action or a sin, that's merely chance. What immoral act results in a good thing, that doesn't take away from another person? And if it does take away from another person, it results in people being impacted negatively, making the action no longer positive.
What I meant by a lack of examples is the following. If one could produce examples of someone committing an immoral act that had no ill effects on him/her, or of committing an immoral act that had no ill effect on others, then your argument of morality falls apart. There exist myriad examples of good things happening to bad people. Myriad examples of immoral acts resulting in good things happening to individuals as a direct result. Your argument is almost one of the ends dictating morality. ?
You missed the point. There is more than one single requirement necessary for a reference point. Not only must it not move, it must not change, it must be separate from the individual and it must be self defining. If any of these are not, then the 'object' is relative. What he is illustrating is objectivism or absolutism as opposed to relativism or subjectivism. He was trying to simplify them with an object lesson.
Thanks for posting. Genius, God-given wisdom. Newsflash!!! THERE ARE NO GOOD PEOPLE...Read and study Matthew 19:16-22. This will also explain why mankind is trying desparately to call themselves "god" or "prove" He doesn't exist and all the other madness their feeding each other...It's also explains why many christians will only let God so far into their lives. Peace and blessings.
@SongofSongs8
1/2
I think there have been bad choices and good choices, but the majority have been good choices. I hear people say sometimes that humans sway towards sin, or sin by nature, but I see the opposite. If the majority of people make bad choices, why isn't the world in worse condition? Humans are prone to some of the supposed riches that are obtained through sin. Think about all that fought against Hitler in the name of good, against the atrocities that Hitler committed. I think we...
you are one lucky person
@mrchaucer
I suppose this all makes sense if you say that it must be outside of you, but that doesn't necessarily have to be said. That belief caters to a theist faith, and isn't necessarily true. I can also say that morality comes from the human mind-- it is an abstract idea, and does not exist physically. I don't see how pizza a
@mrchaucer
Morality comes from the human mind, it is an abstract idea, and does not physically exist, making it subjective. I see where you're coming from on that, but once again, my reasoning shoots from the idea that morality is treating people how you'd be treated, and what needs to be accomplished to live on this planet and to coexist.
@TwentyYearDenial (2)
...majority of people make good choices, why isn't the world in a better condition than it is now?" I think if we're trying to decided whether or not there are more good people than bad people in the world, the debate could go on eternally. We could both cite example of great and merciful deeds, but also of horrific and evil ones. But I'm not trying to say there's more bad people than good in the world or that because humans are sinful that the majority of people make...
@rentintin2000 :-)
@TwentyYearDenial (3)
...all the wrong choices. That's not what I'm implying or what I believe when I say mankind is sinful. When I say that we have a sinful nature, I'm talking about both the good and the bad people. I'm saying that we have all done bad things in our lives, even though many of us are very good people. I'm trying to say that there's this standard that everyone has fallen short of because all have sinned. It's easy to divide people into groups of either "good" or "bad" when...
Morality comes from the ability to identify what is best for you, others, in the long and short term. Morality is a product of our minds, and that doesn't change or alter. What is best and the most beneficial choice in a decision doesn't change. If you make a poor choice, it will end up in hurting yourself and others, that's what morality is.
The Bible is a poor anchor as a fixed reference, as it contradicts itself in several fashions.
@mrchaucer "You gave nothing more than simple unsupported 'statements' laden with assumptions... No proof, no evidence, and no reasoning for anyone to believe you or take you seriously."
Well, I was trying to emulate Michael Medved's style. Or would you prefer I provide no proof or no evidence similar to Peretti, who makes goofy sound effects while jumping around in front of an audience. Say, do you think Peretti himself is possessed? He doesn't speak good english either.
@TwentyYearDenial (4)
...comparing Hitler and Mother Teresa. But what about people who do nothing espacially great in their lives but also never commit a crime or be especially rude to others? What about those who live for themselves but don't hurt other people? Are they good or bad? See, without God, I believe that it in the end, it doesn't matter. (I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to be good, so keep reading.) But no matter how much good we do in this life, we have all sinned. We all...
Third, you make the logical fallacy of the red herring or at least an association fallacy. Just because Peretti and Marrs have the same publishing house does not mean they agree, and simply because there is a similarity between Marrs’ non-fiction and Peretti’s fiction content, does not mean that they are saying the same things. In either case, one would have to address each stance based upon its merits or shortcomings on an individual basis, not in a ‘guilt by association’ argument.
Not all of the 10 Commandments revolve around the concept of thinking of others and yourself. Idolatry, Lord's name in vain, sabbath...none of those include one thinking of oneself or others. Unless of course, you are equating God as "others". If so, then your statement is correct.
hahahaha
Lelz...Italian overhead. xD
@SongofSongs8
3/3 (last one, I promise)
But would we have charities, relief, hospitals, or anything of that sort, if humans were naturally sinful, as you say? Think about all the good that has been done, and then think of all the good that goes unrecognized, all around us. I think it's a shame to slap this label on human beings as 'sinful', because most humans have the inner ambition to do good. Most humans wouldn't kill or steal, and that's why there are more innocent than guilty people.
Another reason his analogy fails, is because if we can't use our own sense of jugement, we can fall for anything.
@mrchaucer
But God instructs Abraham to, and to 'prove' his faith, he accepts that he would kill another human being, but in no case is that right, when the Ten Commandments are taken into account. I don't exactly see how that's foreshadowing, other than in the way that it is sacrifice. Christ, by the Bible, died for our sins-- but how would a man murdering his son to achieve nothing foreshadow anything other than Christ being killed? And what purpose does that serve?
The concept of a fixed point of reference yields an individual to not think on his/her own; please, will someone understand this? You should know what's right because you are moral, not because you need to rely on an old book.
@TwentyYearDenial (5)
...are sinners, both the good and the bad. We are all in need of a Savior. Even if we've done millions of good things in our lives, that can't erase the bad we've done also. We've all felt guilt and shame at one point in our lives and we've all felt hurt at the expense of another. That doesn't mean a lot of people try to live as good people, but doing good things does not erase our nature. And it's because of our sin that we all need Jesus Christ, who forgives us of sin.
Not necessarily true...our judgment can be fooled. What Frank is talking about is moral absolutism. If you have a standard of morals that is constantly changing, then your (our) judgment will not be sound, BECAUSE we cannot know if the standard by which we make judgments is consistent. But, if the moral standard does not change we CAN make sound judgments BECAUSE we know that the standard by which we judge is consistent.
@80srama1 I find it interesting that you claim Peretti’s presentation is “shallow and tedious, tolerable to the fools who take “This Present Darkness” as living gospel, not as pulp Christianity.””
First off, his presentation is anything but shallow and tedious. It is simple and easy to understand, but that is not the same thing as “shallow”. He uses repetition as a teaching tool, but that does not make it “tedious”.
But, how does that negate them as a fixed standard. Jesus said: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. If we do this then we have obeyed the Law and the Prophets. The concept isn't a hard one, but it is a concept that is fixed outside of the individual not dictated by the individual. In fact, it is a rejection of 'take care of # 1" as a concept and acceptance that wrong is wrong not because I believe it to be or not, but because...
@mrchaucer "No proof, no evidence, and no reasoning for anyone to believe you or take you seriously." Well, that should teach me to emulate Michael Medved. Or would Mr Chaucer prefer I jump around in front of a paying audience, making goofy sounds and simple unsupported 'statments' laden with assumptions and a chair for reference? Also, don't you think Peretti in this seminar comes across as if he's possessed? After all, he doesn't speak good english either.
You do understand that by calling yourself an Atheist you believe that no god of any sort exists in the vast universe beyond as far as man has even seen... which by declaring that, you are basically saying you have infinite knowlege of the universe, which in-turn, by having infinite knowledge of the universe means you are a god yourself.... which means your an Atheistic god.... how does THAT work?
@SongofSongs8
... I was born into a sinful nature.
By "an old book," I assume you mean the Bible. Beyond that, it carries God's truth. In fact it IS the Truth. It is God's Word, a Christian's point of reference (that Frank Peretti was talking about) about how to live our lives. The Bible is more than just another religious book, full of rules, philosophy, and traditions. It is the actual, living Word of God. It speaks to all generations of every race, age, and nationality.
BTW...if we are using the ability to speak "good english" as a litmus to determine possession, then a large portion of Western society would qualify as possessed. Another aspect of this would be the logical fallacy of a straw man. Neither you nor I get to make the standard by which right and wrong are determined, or in this specific case, by which possession is determined. What matters is what is...the actuality of reality...not what "seems to be" or what you or I "think".
As far as the Bible being a poor anchor as a fixed reference due to contradictions, is not a valid argument. These 'contradictions' are only in appearance and not in actuality. The Bible can, does, and has stood as a solid fixed point under the closest of scrutiny.
@mrchaucer "No proof, no evidence, and no reasoning for anyone to believe you or take you seriously." Well, that should teach me to emulate Michael Medved. Or would Mr Chaucer prefer I jump around in front of a paying audience, making goofy sounds and simple unsupported 'statments' laden with assumptions and a chair for reference? Also, don't you think Peretti in this seminar almost seems possessed. After all, he doesn't speak good english either.
@nickvantassel The reason we need a Savior is because of sin. The foundation of this belief is the Bible but I have also been convicted through my own personal experiences. I know if I were to reject God, my sin and failure would overwhelm me. I know I need him. See, when God created mankind, there was no sin. When man sinned, all of humanity bore the consequences of the act. But when God sent his sin to die on the cross to take our punishment, that act provided salvation for all mankind.
@mrchaucer Unfortunately, it is pariahs like Medved who set themselves up as authorities of the truth, not me. Medved was a major reason I became an atheist (and you've helped me admirably in that direction too). But really- "it doesn't matter what seems to be rather what is." Pardon my epistemology, but what seems to you as progression of thought, is in fact a naive best-selling author leading the blind. Try getting your own eyes checked before telling an ex-Christian what is and isn't.
@TwentyYearDenial
Human beings are naturally sinful, not moral or good. We have a moral compass but it is still our choice whether or not to follow it. Would you say that mankind, by our own nature, have made the right decisions, the good choices. If you say yes, think about Hitler. Think about criminals. Really, is it easier to do we what we want, even if it's wrong, or to do something right, even when it's difficult? I'm a Christian, but I still fall into sin because...
@80srama1 You put people's names up as if they somehow are the authorities of truth. People are fallible and the fact of the matter is that I could care less what Michael Medved says unless he has sound logic to support what he says. Peretti's 'unsupported statements' were anything but unsupported. He illustrated the logical progression of thought to support his conclusion. No...I don't think he seemed 'possessed'...goofy...yes. But it doesn't matter what seems to be but rather what is.
When God instructs Abraham to kill Isaac, how is that not contradictory to the Ten Commandments?
I understand the fact that not all of the Old Testament is taken literally, but it is part of the Bible, and stands as a point against the Bible being fixed.
Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me Ps 51:5 All mankind are walking to Hell from birth, Even that innocent Child however it is cover by the blood of Jesus to the age of accountability. The child need to be born again when they can understand the difference between good and evil. They need salvation through Christ. Presumptuous Sin Problem? Take each sin to Jesus ask Him to remove and order your steps in His word! The Rapture is real short Repent Evg Travis
I disagree with your statements. If morality is a product of our minds, then it will change or alter, specifically due to culture, ideology, education, etc. If the statement "If you make a poor choice, it will end up hurting yourself and others,..." were true then we couldn't give any examples of choices that were morally wrong, and had no ill effect on the person or others, yet myriad examples exist.
Here is yet another logical fallacy or possibly even two in your argument. 1. You're begging the question of morality by assuming morality, but never mention from where morality comes. 2. You're argument is one of incredulity. Just because it seems obvious to you that we would all agree that the act would be immoral does not necessarily indicate that your conclusion is correct. In fact, many may disagree with your statement simply due to lack of information.
@80srama1 Those involved in the New Age, those ascribing to secular humanism, pro-abortion advocates, and evolutionists have either been duped and/.or are relegated to the category of amoralist by their very belief systems. From a Biblical standpoint, the above listed beliefs are antithetical to the Word. I will not agree with calling people 'snakes' in a carte blanch manner at all. You have still failed to support your argumentation one whit.
The problem you pose is a straw man. Did Abraham kill Isaac? No. No murder was committed. God instructed Abraham to do this in order to demonstrate one of His qualities as a God that provides when there seems to be no possible way of provision and also as a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice for mankind in the future. Seems pretty fixed still.
Here is another example:
Premise A: “Bin Laden was a terrorist.”
Premise B: “Bin Laden had a beard.”
Conclusion: “Therefore, anyone who has a beard is a terrorist.”
The red herring fallacy is one of distraction from the real issue at hand. Using a statement or claim to pull the divert attention from the main point of the discussion. You post went from Perretti’s presentation to conspiracy theories, Texx Marrs, and anti-Semitism without ever connecting them with Perretti’s presentation.
Carte blanch and unsupported statements about the anti-Semitic and paranoid writing along with using ‘evangelical’ as an aspersion do nothing to promote your claims and in fact, do more to harm your position than anything. I am not supporting Texx Marrs, nor am I saying I agree with him. Just in case you think I do.
You made claims about Peretti’s presentation, Peretti’s readers, Peretti’s publishing house, Texx Marrs, and Texx Marrs’ teachings without a single shred of evidence to support your position on any of your claims. You gave nothing more than simple unsupported ‘statements’ laden with assumptions…No proof, no evidence, and no reasoning for anyone to believe you or take you seriously; you statements contain assumptions and logical fallacy.
I'm not sure what you are referring to about 'stealing'. What Frank is talking about is the deliberate progressive brainwashing of a culture and society that has been occuring for generations. In that sense, those opposing Christian values, morals, absoultes, right and wrong...have been trying to 'steal' the minds of the west since the early 19th century and maybe even before.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're intoning about 'stealing'?
What complete nonsense. According to his logic, you can use anything as a reference point, just as long as it is stationary.
Nobly if your never stationary , you are lost