(jumpin in WAY late in the game)
There's a LOT of things in your opening post that are simply ... strange ways of thinking to me. But here are two that I think are important:
In other words, despite that fact that an objective appraisal of the Christian God as derived from the world around us, and the Bible depicts an un-good God, this is negated because we can't see the bigger picture.
Are you actually claiming some sort of ethic to be "objective" ? I don't think I'd want to go there. What is it that makes you think there's an 'objective' ethic? Please, if do want to explain, define 'objective' AND ethic while you do it. That will help me respond to you better. Thanks!
What basis do Christians then have to claim that he is "Good"? They use the same sources: the Bible and in some cases testomony from aspects of the world. Can it not be countered that they also have no idea of the bigger picture and have no capability to analyse the nature of their God?
For Christians, God is the CREATOR of good and evil, and JUDGEMENT. God does, almost by DEFINITION, what is right. I think the only approach you can take is to show inconsistency in what God says, and what God does; i.e. you use God's own ethic to show that he does things against it. In other words, this 'objective' ethic stuff is NOT going to get you far. I think Mike the wiz is doing the best job of trying to follow this way.
You can't PARTIALLY accept the Christian God. Either you make the leap of faith to believe in the Christian God and what that God represents, or you don't. I feel like you're trying to posit that Christians accept that there is SOME God, with unknown properties, and then to judge him with some ethic (which you've chosen to call objective). That's just not how it works with faith. You're either all in, or not in at all. So ... I think it's confusing because the problem you're stating is basically a straw man (and I'm guessing an inadvertent one)
Comments?
Ben