wrote:

>> > lsenders wrote:
>> >> Faith is never blind.  Blind faith is an oxymoron.
>> >> ..
>>
>> Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
>>   the evidence of things not seen.
>>
>> This totally contradicts what Loren said.
>
> No it doesn't.  It confirms it.  "THINGS hoped for."  There is an
> object of faith.  You cannot have an object unless there is an
> acKNOWledgement.

Of course there is an object.  The issue is whether one
_sees_ the object.   Hebrews 11:1 says, quite clearly, that
the object is not seen.  This completely negates your
materialistic assertion that "blind faith" is an oxymoron.


It's funny (or it would be funny if it wasn't so common)
that you cite a verse which underscores your error:

> Rom. 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not
> hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees?
> Rom. 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we
> wait eagerly for it.


Specifically, if you can see it, is is NOT hope.



> But you may hope for things not yet seen, but that does not equate to
> say that we hope for things not yet known.


What are prating about?  You said "blind", which means "not
seeing."  Now you're trying to babble on about "knowing" and
"not knowing".

> You cannot have an object unless there is an
> acKNOWledgement.

An infant has faith in its parents when it doesn't
even have the power of ackowledgement.  The object is
there.  The faith is there.  What is lacking is your
works-righteous/altar-call nonsense.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 12:54:52 PM ---