Re: Jack Hickman
Date: August 16, 2011 11:29PM
I'm reading, hanging on each word, furiously scribbling down notes and....here's what I think I'm hearing...
Below is Jack expounding upon beliefs. What he seems to be saying is that
'' to become interactive with the government and to politically oppose them in a way which is legal...in NOT sanctifying faith''....''However, to live a seemingly benign life which puts you at odds with the laws of the state IS sanctifying.''
Did I understand this correctly?
Here's what he says.
=========================================================================
Jack Hickman .......''''That which is crude, ambitious, self-centered, etc., is not helpful. The value of the life of faith is this: whether the person is walking the streets free or is put in prison, and not necessarily for having done something that was a crime, but because of his or her faith; that person's faith is suddenly something that is alive to the state. The state determines that the person of this faith, which is completely benign any other time, is now evil. This faith is an enemy of the state and, therefore, the person of this faith can be killed, eliminated, because he or she intimidates the state and all the persona of the state. We intimidate the government; we intimidate everyone who is different in faith or principle.
What should be done to people like that? Punish them, put them in prison or kill them. But what are the people of this particular faith (whatever this faith may be), these people who are enemies of the state, enemies of the people, enemies of society? What are they, really, and what are they doing? Well, they are creating faith, sanctifying faith. In the illustration I gave you earlier about rubbing your shoes on the carpet to get a shock, you are creating something. But when you RUB SOCIETY THE WRONG WAY AND DISTURB IT WITH principles, actions, or beliefs that are CONTRADICTORY TO THE MAJORITY, then you are doing something wrong. The state is against all of this type of wrong. Consequently, the act of faith, SANCTIFYING FAITH, IS EVIL (TO THE STATE) . It is at odds with, out of harmony with the state. Therefore, the state must have the privilege of forcing or eliminating the faith that is sanctifying.
It is as much a principle in this world as night and day: those who are sanctifying their lives in faith and those who are not, unbeknownst to them, are coming against each other like a great, big, huge truck that comes against a little bitty old Chevrolet, and smashes the heck out of it. The attack is violent, but the attack from the side of the world is against the world, against the worldview, against the fundamentals of society. It is against the laws of society. Therefore, SANCTIFYING FAITH IS, IN ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE, THE ENEMY OF THE STATE AND OF THE WORLD. A person of such faith is an enemy of the world, because that faith is not a defensive faith. When you find the churches being defensive, being aggressive against government policies, etc., you know very well that this is not active, sanctifying faith. No matter what they say, don't believe it. Never believe it.
These guys who are condemning the state, yet PARTICIPATING IN POLITICS and having their own corner and creating their own society, ARE NOT PEOPLE OF SANCTIFYING FAITH. They are people who use the faith of other people for their own purposes, and that's all it is. On television or on the radio, they will ask you for money. They will tell you why the government is so terrible, and it is. It isn't that they are wrong about the government, but they are not attacking the government for good, solid reasons. They are doing it because the government has made it possible for them to do so. You have to watch out for these people, because they have been multiplying over the last fifteen, twenty years, and they are making money from this. They are capable of drawing crowds, groups of people together, who will gladly give out money to do "the right thing." But doing the right thing is not the purpose of these people. The purpose is the power thing. Not one of them could be elected to any office, so they ride on the backs of their