It's more likely that people hate Christianity because they distort it, misunderstanding, and twist it into saying things that it doesn't say. Of course slaughtering an infant is a problem. I would be pleased to see your evidence for how many infants were killed in the Flood. If you want to converse at this level, which is fine with me, let's deal with the evidence you have.

> Even a 1-yr-old is growing up part of a broken system, and will (in this context) be trained in the same corruption as the rest of society. Even a 1-yr-old is born separated from God, a "citizen" of the wrong country, so to speak. But even a 1-yr-old get an automatic free ticket to heaven, so we really don't have a problem here.

Do you ever wonder why a lot of people hate Christianity? Could it be because to a Christian, slaughtering an infant is "not a problem"?

The plan was punishment for the perpetrators and rescue for the innocent. Any judge worth his salt punishes wrongdoers and vindicates those who are doing good. Any police force doing their job right arrests criminals so the law-abiding citizens can live in peace. Exactly what problem do you have with justice?

And the plan was to kill everyone?

You seem to miss the whole point.

No one is innocent (whatever "innocent" really means in this context). I don't care what Sarah McLaughlin sings! I don't agree with B.F. Skinner that we are born with a clean slate. Any parent knows that children at a very young age are disobedient, self-centered, angry, and many other things besides adorably cute. But cuteness isn't the issue here, it's that we are born separated from God. It's not the we're evil or that we've done anything bad, but that we're separated from God.

Suppose a dog is loved and cared for by his master, but one day chooses to run away into the woods, so far as to never be found. That's not the master's fault, but the dog's choice. Let's suppose then that dog has puppies, and they are, necessarily, raised as wild dogs. They don't know the home and love of the master, the warm fire or the food freely put into their bowls. They are wild. it's all they know. They are not "born innocent," to try to bring the analogy into our context, but born wild, separated from the master, knowing nothing of His love.

Let's suppose also there is a raging fire, like in California right now. Some of the pups get killed. Is this the master's fault? No. Actually, every day he has gone out into the woods looking for his beloved dog. Every once in a while he comes upon some of the pups. They're afraid of him. They don't know about his love. Any pups who will return to his home will be welcomed as family, and given food and shelter. It's their choice whether to return or to continue as wild.

These dogs may be "good" dogs, but they're wild. They're not "innocent," so to speak, even from birth.

> how do people think that just because someone goes to heaven, everything is fine.

It's not that everything is fine, but it's not the loss and the cruelty you make it out to be. The children are caught in the wave of the judgment, but they are also brought into the home of the master. It's the right ending to a tragic story.

> And even if anyone innocent got caught up in the flood, they would immediately go to haven, so there's no problem here.

Yes there is. Jeez, how do people think that just because someone goes to heaven, everything is fine. By that logic, we should kill little kids before they grow up because then we see helping them get to heaven! How can we NOT do something that let's a person go to heaven? Or how does God currently justify having a young child suffer and die at one year old rather than immediately at birth. In either case, the child doesn't exactly have much of a life, but by living longer the child suffers more.

So I think that a God that doesn't consider any human by default innocent, due to something Eve did f*** knows how long ago, and chooses to let children suffer is a shit God that doesn't deserve worship. I mean really, why would people want to worship a God that even tries justifying such things instead of rushing to fix them?

> We do blame the parents in some cases, if not all.

That's where the analogy breaks down, because it's true that sometimes parents are complicit in their children's behavior by their own mistakes. This is not the case with God, however. Our behavior came about totally from ourselves.

> Also, parents aren't claimed to be all loving or all knowing.

All-knowledge has nothing to do with it. The point is that we bring children into the world as an act of love knowing they will not be perfect. Same dynamic.

> You can't just pass off god's portion of the responsibility for it just because humans had a part.

Humans didn't just have a part, they were the whole ball of wax. It was impossible for God to create beings that were uncreated (and therefore God had no choices but to create people who were not divine). Because they weren't divine, it was possible for us to sin. God is not responsible for creating us as good as possible, then warning us not to sin, and making a way for us to follow His way. We had the free will to follow God or to indulge self. We chose to indulge self, and God is not responsible for that.

> And the plan was worthless since he knew it would fail.

Oh, the plan didn't fail at all. The plan is still alive and well. God is redeeming people from sin all over the world. People are escaping the slavery of their own pride, self-orientation and sin and turning to God for forgiveness and redemption. I will take this opportunity even to extend the invitation to you: If you will repent of your sin, you too can join the family of God and be forgiven and free. God will forgive your sin, and you'll no longer be subject to judgment for sin you've already committed. You can be a new creation and start life over in a love relationship with God.

> Now, now, this doesn't make any sense. When a parent has a child, he and she know that child is going to disobey sometimes and makes mistakes sometimes. Do we blame the parents for that? Of course not.

We do blame the parents in some cases, if not all.

If a kid doesn't stop screaming and running around in the supermarket, disobeying, the parents are not magically absolved of their responsibility. They are still responsible.

Also, parents aren't claimed to be all loving or all knowing.

Not only that, but it is easy for multiple parties to be responsible for something.

In the case of the disobedient kid in the supermarket, both the parent and the kid are to blame for the misbehavior.

You can't just pass off god's portion of the responsibility for it just because humans had a part. But in this case, it would be inaccurate to say that humanity had a part.

> It's impossible that humankind would be perfect and not sin.

And that doesn't absolve god's responsibility. If he created something that he knew would be result in evil then he is responsible for it.

Also, if it was impossible for us to not sin, then that means we have no free will and it is entirely god's fault.

You've shot yourself in the foot here.

> it is impossible for God to have created a being that didn't have the possibility of sin. Free will necessitates, well, free will.

If it is impossible for us to not sin, then we don't have free will.

And just as I've said before, even if we did have free will, which you've pretty much admitted that we don't, it wouldn't matter because god would still be responsible.

> God knew we would sin, and had instituted a plan before it happened to redeem the sin,

And the plan was worthless since he knew it would fail.

> He asked a question about someone with perfect foreknowledge, and you answered one about someone who lacks that. Not exactly fair.

It was fair in the sense of answering the question: Why would a being bring another being into existence if they knew that being would sin. Even we humans without omniscience have enough knowledge to know that children aren't going to be perfect, and yet we bring them into the world as an act of love (most of the time, or some of the time...).

> And if a perfectly loving parent confidently knew their child would do so - is a retroactive abortion the right answer?

No, of course not, but justice is the right answer. People have to be accountable for their actions, and the account of Genesis says that people and society had become thoroughly corrupted—a failed civilization due to a chain of wicked choices. Any judge worth his salt will find such perpetrators guilty. Any system that has even a modicum of morality will punish such people. Why is this so unfair? A just and moral society is built on principles of law, order, and justice: vindication for the good and punishment for the bad. Why is God not held up to the same standard?

> yet if I knew they would be disobedient, or turn against me, I would still never consider slaughtering them.

As you said, not exactly fair. It's not the same situation. Of course you wouldn't slaughter your own children (though I have heard stories of a man who shot his own son who had become evil, and of parents who turned their children in to the authorities for their crimes, even though capital punishment was probably going to be the result). The point here is eternal destiny. Knowing that people in hell are only punished to the extent of their "crimes," and that the punishment is commensurate to the infraction, if there is a society that is only destined to become worse, isn't there justification in terminating it to prevent even more horrific consequences?

> Did the evil people slaughtered in the flood have access to this redemption?

The Bible indicates that Noah was a preacher of righteousness to his generation (2 Peter 2.5). There is also good reason to believe that the Flood was regional, not global. So there is reason to believe that the evil people had heard the way of escape from their corruption but refused to take it.

> And you haven't even written this fan-fiction yet, you just sort of allude to what it might probably contain.

There's no reason to write a long justification if you haven't asked for it. I don't like just dumping on people. If you want to know, I'll be glad to write.

> For the same reason human parents have children knowing that there is always the possibility that the child might be disobedient

He asked a question about someone with perfect foreknowledge, and you answered one about someone who lacks that. Not exactly fair.

> always the possibility that the child might be disobedient, might turn against them one day

And if a perfectly loving parent confidently knew their child would do so - is a retroactive abortion the right answer? Consider, I love my children very much, and yet if I knew they would be disobedient, or turn against me, I would still never consider slaughtering them. Does god love his children more than I do, or less?

> Third, God knew that whatever evil bad men could perpetrate, God could redeem it if they would just let him.

Through what method? Did the evil people slaughtered in the flood have access to this redemption? Was it taught to them? You've got to add an awful lot of fan-fiction to the bible to support your hypothesis. And you haven't even written this fan-fiction yet, you just sort of allude to what it might probably contain.