Sea Breeze: And, it is the premise behind this proposition that seems so puzzling to others.
The premise is literally "judge him by his actions." If this is puzzling, I daresay the issue is not with the premise.
Sea Breeze: when we are all using the same definition, your argument immediately falls apart.
Your definition is incomplete, in order to match your presuppositions about what your god is supposed to be. It is not my argument that falls apart, it is the view of god as being only the things you choose to allow, while ignoring the actions that contradict them.
Craig's approach is just a form of "mysterious ways." When god does something that appears wrong, or mistaken, or brutal, or wicked, Craig insists that there must be more to it than we can see on the surface. The problem with this is twofold: for one, many of these actions are pretty clear. Two, it means that we cannot claim to understand him at all, since even the good things he does might be misleading. It is, therefore, useless as an argument.
Halcon: Once again you didn't finish the list. He is also loving, patient, peaceful, considerate, even compassionate according to Christ.
The possibility that god might do something loving or kind does not worry us, for obvious reasons. The possibility that he is irrational, violent, and unpredictable should. Many abusive people are also capable of kindness and compassion. It is not those moments that worry their victims.