Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743106955695292416

Re: "The flood myth was written long before the buybull", to me, the comment "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans" does not seem intended as an assessment of the account's historicity, but seems likely intended as a criticism of God's considering genocide a good thing for humans. My response seems to (a) attempt to place that criticism in its apparent context of Genesis 6:5, (b) compare that criticism to the apparent contradictory criticism of the extent to which God seems reasonably suggested to have left human evildoing and its resulting human suffering unchecked, and (c) pose the question of which criticism seems false. If the apparent response "The whole lot is false" is intended to suggest that both criticisms of God are false, I seem to agree, regardless of whether or not the flood account is historic.