I don't see how it helps you much to bring logic into it. You're saying my three criticisms have faulty logic, but you respond to them by begging the question, by assuming that God is "real and honest." Then you imagine that of course such a deity would act in the manner depicted by Christianity, "saving" us by sacrificing his "son."

I don't think it makes sense to trivialize the topic of divinity or of transcendent being by anthropomorphizing it and by presuming that it would act in a "fitting" way. Would a God who wants to fit into human understanding create a fallen world in the first place, complete with a demonic tempter to take advantage of his creatures' innocence? Would such a God punish everyone for eternity unless they subscribe to obsolete Christian dogmas?

You're asking whether there could be "a more loving act" than child sacrifice? The question answers itself in the negative, unless your mind has been warped by priestly double talk. I prefer Jack Miles' explanation, which is that God punished himself on the cross because he knows he's the one who deserves it. God was our guardian and he failed to protect us from Satan. It wasn't self-sacrifice but an admission of divine guilt. (None of it's real, of course, but that's how the myth should be read, in some such Gnostic manner.)

You want Christianity to seem commonsensical, rational, and fitting so you can justify your creed's monstrousness. Of course, we can mentally tame anything by becoming sufficiently familiar with it. No matter how grotesque the circumstances, we can cope with them. That's how flexible the human mind is, so Christians who grow up with their religion or who turn to it in a moment of desperation are bound to overlook the religion's flaws, the way we overlook the downside of whatever we love. But everything is flawed, and it may take an outsider to show us the inevitable downside.