Do you want to Argue or to Seek Truth?

FLOOD OF IDEAS v. 

IDEAS OF FLOOD

Before engaging in too much argument, I am now trying to ask folks if they are actually seeking Truth, or if they are just wanting to argue. 

The reason is that those seeking Truth may actually stay logical for a few moments longer than those just wanting to argue. 

For instance, a friend told me of a person who gave her the old "there are flood myths all over the world" argument. 

Correctly understood, this SUPPORTS the proposition that a Flood actually occurred. It does not tell you which one happened, or which one

is the most accurate, but it supports that the flood is in the consciousness of most of mankind in some form.

That takes you to the task of comparing the myths.

However, I have to remain patient as people who have barely glanced at these issues add and subtract all kinds of things from the Biblical Account that they rail against.

Recent examples:

-A fellow said that freshwater fish and eels could not exist for a year on the Ark

Of course, that is not even implied in the Biblical Text. (There are explanations for the fish survival, but the point is the adding to part).

-A "Documentary" on Tv calculated that it would take so long to load "every variety of animal that has ever existed into the Ark, even at 2 per second"

Again, that is just not what the text says. It says every type, or in modern day, every species. There are thousands of dog breeds, but there once two canines.

Modern science supports that easily.

But honestly, the "straw men" that are erected by folks arguing the "scientific" view when they have barely read what they argue so hatefully against drives me up the proverbial wall.

By the way, if they answer that they do not believe in Truth, they have disqualified themselves from ever arguing anything, for all time with anyone.  

Think about it.