thanks, god.

[fr0d0]

For there to be a balance some creatures must lose out, species go extinct, and babies will wither and die. Regardless of how beautiful the end product is, the orchestrator still must use great evils to achieve a wonderful end. If there is war, death and famine on this planet, in all its beauty, I will still be convinced that God has the capacity for evil (and uses it) even if I justify the evil and think it leads to something wonderful on a whole. God is not all good.

What is pure good? You're saying that God can't be good because he isn't 'all good', even tho' you acknowledge that God is ultimately good. Because the route to that good, in this reality, can't avoid some death and suffering, he must be part bad.
I think that your view fits with mainstream Christianity, and on those grounds, I'd probably have to agree with you, that theologically, God has and will do some bad things, in our understanding, whilst remaining ultimately good. I think it fits with the accepted nature of God as defined by the Christian Bible.

So whilst it is possibly over simplistic to state that "God is good". It is essentially true, in broad terms.

A Christian isn't promised any sort of special treatment for being a Christian. "It rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous". Gods goodness isn't perceived as good in that sense to Christians. The relationship with God primarily focuses on spiritual and not physical matters.

Rejecting the bible doesn't render your opinions useless though. We've discussed a lot about God without bible reference being necessary. As for the validity of the bible, maybe in a another thread we go pursue it further as its own subject.

I reference the Bible completely. You would be rendering me impotent, and I couldn't continue the discussion, as that's the God we're discussing. I guess though that your talking about using the Bible literally, and I don't need to do that. Of course you reject the Bible. I have no problem with that at all.