The Christian God's "morality"

I would like to start by thanking CriticalThinkingMachine for such a warm welcome and polite demeanor. I also would like thank him for not only amending the definition of "morally good" to include positive actions ,but also for pointing out my omission of morally neutral actions. I would now like to formally start my proposal for this arguments second round. My assertion that God is not "morally good" also must, under further scrutiny, must be more clearly defined. The basis on which we judge a human's "moral goodness" is by his actions, ergo we must judge God by his. Thus now "moral goodness" has come to encompass the actions that constitute the aforementioned positive and negative properties of decreasing harm and increasing happiness without harming others as well as the overall moral assessment of the being in regards to said actions. To start I would like to reference the Torah quite a bit. In Exodus, when God sent the Israelites into Egypt to gather food due to famine, why did God send the famine? Surely this caused at the very least a panic within the unprepared. After the famine had ended, God sent Moses to free His people. He did this, at first, in perfectly acceptable way: he used miraculous acts through Moses. Later, God sent the plagues, which certainly cause inconvenience to the people... in the beginning. After the plague of pestilence, God unbuckled his proverbial belt and took a swing with the plague of boils. Is sending boils upon the innocent citizens when the leader is to blame. Is it right to punish others for the wrongdoing of one? Not to mention, the plague of hail that destroyed their food crop left them in no state to recover from their skin deformity. Skipping a few plagues that, in my opinion, are less heinous, we come to the plague of the death of the firstborn. I will reiterate my point from the plague of boils, when is it acceptable to punish others for the sins of one? On a side note, God was the one keeping Pharaoh from letting the Israelites leave by hardening pharaohs heart. Several generations later, God observes that David had committed adultery with Bathsheba. As punishment God killed the child; it took 7 days for the child to die. Hell is also a problem for the argument of God's goodness, as we have defined it. If God is omnipotent, He could save everyone in Hell by simply thinking them into Heaven. Since He does not do this, He is content to allow them to suffer for an eternity. While on the topic of Hell, what ,exactly, is the purpose of Hell (just curious on what the answer could be)? I think this is enough for a round ,although I can go on with examples of God doing similarly abhorrent atrocities, if you wish me to go on next round. If you are one who believes that everybody deserves eternal punishment from God, by default, for the sin of man, than how does one judge actions? I will discuss this on the off chance that you do hold this position. (although I believe you to be smart enough to see the flaws in this belief.) Most places on earth and even in Christianity's view of salvation, the individuals actions determine praise or punishment or neither (as you mentioned earlier). This fact renders the whole notion of punishment without action of the individual completely contradictory to almost every concept of fairness. I feel that you will do well in debating me. I await the joy of critique and bid thee good luck.