Not to rain on a tiny portion of Herra's fun little Biblical literalist romp...
Biblical literalism considers all that is said in the Bible to be an accurate and exact description of what happened. I don't think that is sensible in any context. Thus my critique is more of the events themselves rather than how they were supposedly achieved.
Note that I intentionally skipped all the objections about how something (seemingly impossible) was done - such as packing all the land animals in a single ark, a patent impossibility in itself - and tried to concentrate more on the reasons God supposedly had for doing all these things. The Flood is another impossibility, but I'm willing to assume that it just happened, and inspect the effects it had, and why it was done, and I find it unacceptable with these merits alone.
The how is but a function following the what, and what God did in most of these cases is either inexcusably cruel, or plain acts of a madman.
And yeah, I am aware that now someone will bring up God's superior morality and claiming whatever God does is automatically good and right by definition of being an act of god. To which I reply with a slightly modified quote from a source you should by all means recognize (if not, look it up):
"You've made yourself judge, jury, and if necessary executioner. By what right have you appointed yourself to this position?"
"Superior morality."
"Yes. I recall how you used your superior morality when we first encountered you. You put us on trial for the crimes of humanity."
"The jury is still out on that, make no mistake."
"Your arrogant pretence at being the moral guardian of the universe strikes me as being hollow, God. I see no evidence that you are guided by a superior moral code, or any code whatsoever. You may be nearly omnipotent, and I don't deny that your parlour tricks are very impressive, but morality? I don't see it. I don't acknowledge it, God. I would put human morality against the God's any day. And perhaps that's the reason that we fascinate you so. Because our puny behaviour shows you a glimmer of the one thing that evades your omnipotence, a moral centre."
...but the doctrine of the Trinity traditionally states that the three persons of God remain one in nature, so it was God's true personhood suffering on that cross. In addition, the persons of the Trinity are held to be equally eternal, so it's not some matter of God snapping his fingers and cutting off a slice of Jesus (boy that's a fun image) to head to Earth. Do carry on with the sunglasses, though. 
Well, the fact of the matter is that first mentions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit come into the scripture comparatively late and by that time God had multiple times referred to himself simply as "I Am" (sounds familiar with pantheistic overconsciousness to me, but other aspects of this particular God sort of speak against that interpretation). No mention about existing in specifically three different aspects, but a singular entity that just is.
Moreover, Jesus didn't seem to think so, as he directed his thoughts in spoken form to his Father multiple times according to the written record (however dubious): Most well known (and, IMHO, most important) would be these I guess (not literal, but CBA to look up the exact verses):
1. Father, if it's possible, take this burden away from me.
2. Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.
3. Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?*
At the very least, it seems apparent that Jesus was speaking to a separate personality who consciously chose to remain separate from the entity sent to Earth, thus avoiding the actual experience. It's possible that they merged again after Jesus was airlifted to heavens above, but then it remains a question why the whole concept of trinity is still valid in any way (more valid would be to consider that God can take any form it wishes - sometimes I wonder why Burning Bush is not counted among the apparitions of God, but I guess trinity sound a lot better as a word than quaternity. Also Burning Bush sort of breaks the litany... In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Burning Bush doesn't sound nearly as convincing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
One thing should be said about christianity - it's makers really knew their show business inside out. As a people management exercise it is a rather impressive one - from an obscure cult to the biggest (albeit fractured) religion in the Earth in less than 2000 years? It is an impressive feat, no matter what my personal thoughts about the content of said religion are.
Too bad they basically chose to use their power over people to dominate, oppress and condemn them rather than just giving nonjudgmental guidance. And meddling with secular power is something no religion should ever do, it tends to ruin the whole concept.
*I know quite well it's a direct quote from earlier book, but I think it is still relevant to consider Jesus meant just what he said rather than simply making an obscure reference to earlier scripture.
