Literal belief in the flood story

[truthBtold]

So which is it? God did or didn't kill any babies in the flood?

What does the text say?

Tell me something: you believe an invisible man in the sky who can flood the entire planet by willing it to be so. Someone accuses you of presenting a "magical third argument," and your response is to accuse them of believing in magic. Serious question: are you drunk, just getting desperate, or both?

The belief in magic comment was meant to be tongue and cheek. I'm assuming the op doesn't really believe in magic but is using 'magic' and 'supernatural' synonymously. Not really sure what you mean by 'accusing me of presenting a magical third argument'. My understanding of the op is that he believes there are only two options, not more. Last question: No, No, and thus no.

Because a paragraph or so before, you expressed the belief that all babies (and the mentally handicapped) go straight to Heaven being too young to profess their faith in Christ, so God is justified in drowning babies, because by the Grace of Christ, 2300 years before Christ, the drowned babies will float up to heaven?

My response about babies and the mentally handicapped was an answer to the 'age of accountability'. It was not within the context of a justification for the flood.

The claim that everyone was wicked is separate from that, and we know, based upon what is scientifically demonstrated in reality, that this second claim simply cannot be true. Literally, it's impossible that this is true.

I was with your post until here. How can you scientifically demonstrate that 4000 years ago, the thoughts of mankind were not exceedingly wicked?

Either way, you don't really have a lot of solid ground to stand on, with this position you're taking. Oh, and you ask me if I can read everyone's thoughts; I don't have to. Babies aren't self aware until like fifteen months at the earliest. Since there is no actor in their thoughts before then, there is no moral position that can be affixed to them. Telepathy not required.

Again, meant to be tongue and cheek, although the premise still stands. If God's word is telling me the thoughts of men were exceedingly wicked and your telling me they weren't, it's logical to infer the proof would be in your knowledge of their thoughts. To address the second portion: Doesn't self awareness simply mean a person is aware of themselves? Prior to self awareness, a person could have thoughts without being aware of them.

No one is misrepresenting the scriptures here,

Equivocating murder for judgment? Where does it say in the scriptures God murdered babies? It says He judged the earth with a global flood because...(see Genesis 6:5) Your saying He murdered innocent people. This is a misrepresentation of what is written.

That's called - in some circles- being an idiot.

If that is your standard hermeneutic, then, according to those circles, by nature education yields idiocy.

Are you proposing you strawman me?

True. I'm sorry about that. In all honesty it was as much an insight into what the accusation of God's character would be had He told Noah to go take peoples children as it was a counterargument. Though I'm seeing that perhaps your counterargument would be something like "they (the children) could have magically appeared on the ark as soon as it started raining." But I won't assume and let you answer. If you propose Noah raise the children of the earth at the time, how would he get them in such a way so as to not be accused of kidnapping?

Then please, elaborate. What is this magical third option of which you speak. If you can't explain how that's a false dilemma, then I can't take your accusation very seriously.

True. A couple options:
God orchestrated the timing of the flood in such a way that there was no person before the age of accountability at the time. None existed so as to drown.
God did save them by having them brought up to Himself. In that He brought everyone before the age of accountability to heaven as soon as the door to the ark shut. None of them drown.

To the posters of the thread in general, addressing the straw man:

I'm agruing:
Pr. Mankind was exceedingly wicked (Genesis 6:5)
Pr. God sent the flood
Pr Mankind died in the flood
Pr. If mankind was exceedingly wicked then killing them would be just.
Therefore: God sending the flood to kill mankind was just.

I am not arguing though others are claiming I am is:

Pr. God sent the flood
Pr. God was justified in sending the flood
Pr Mankind died in the flood
Pr. If children are part of mankind then they died in the flood.
Pr. Children are innocent.
Therefore: God is justified in killing innocent children.

Given: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Using this as a given premise, then:

If you believe that children are incapable of evil thoughts then you can logically infer there were none at the time of the flood.

If you believe that children are capable of evil thoughts then you can logically infer there were children at the time of the flood, but then you cannot use 'children are innocent' as a premise as you cannot have children (children being a part of mankind) are evil and children are not evil as two premises (law of non-contradiction).

It should also be noted that you can, if you choose, argue against the premise of Genesis 6:5 altogether (although I already assume you don't believe what is written). What cannot be claimed is that the arguement is somehow immoral or illogical from the given premises.

Did u just say god doesnt kill babies?? R u serious?? Or r u soft as baby shit? Read ur fucking book.