Sure. Let's start at the beginning, with God's first sin against humanity: the lie about the Tree of Knowledge. God says "On the day you eat of it, you will surely die", and then a snake comes up and points out that no, that isn't true; eating it will make you like God, knowing good and evil. So Eve, and then Adam, eat the fruit, and they gain knowledge of... clothing and nudity, which in and of themselves are neither good nor evil. Had God been honest, they'd've died, but had the snake been honest, they would have, presumably, been upset not about being naked, but about having disobeyed God- assuming that God was good. Remember that snake, we'll come back to it in a bit.
After the expulsion from the Garden, God basically sits around and waits for five generations, then wiped out the entire planet, including the animals, who naturally couldn't've done much to evoke divine anger (though I suppose the fish would've been fine). Five generations later, Abraham shows up and the proto-Hebrews get started. Five generations later (notice the pattern?), we get Moses, and the origins of Judaism as we know it, culminating in the Exodus, where Yahweh repeatedly "hardened [the] Pharaoh's heart" in order to have some level of justification for the plagues brought down- which is a fancy way of saying that God tormented innocent people whose only crime was being born in the wrong place, in order to win a pissing contest with other gods, reaching its zenith in the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of innocent children, then demanding the people it was done to rescue celebrate the mercy entailed in not ALSO killing them.
By any rational definition, Yahweh is heinously evil- but let's look a little deeper.
Specifically, let's skip ahead a thousand or so years, when Jesus comes along. What was the purpose of the Incarnation? Christians will tell you that it was "to redeem humanity", but, as you've said, sin is a personal matter, not a collective one. Regardless of how it's packaged, original sin is just a nonsensical marketing gimmick, since sin can't exist where there's no moral agency. After Constantine's conversion, Christianity became a fantastic tool of Roman social imperialism- not Christianity as Jesus preached it, but rebranded by an "apostle" who never even MET the guy into a radically conservative doctrine of social-cohesion-by-way-of-massed-conformity. You could fit everything that Jesus said about sexuality on a single index card; Paul wouldn't shut up about it. Ordinarily, I'd suggest directly comparing their works; stacking Paul's epsitles against the Gospel of Jesus, but the latter doesn't exist (or didn't survive, but the fact that Jesus was basically making an apocalypse cult suggest it was never written). So what does that leave us with?
The prior texts, of course: when Yahweh was angry at humanity in Noah's day, they were wiped out. When Yahwah was angry at humanity (well, Sodom and Gomorrah) in Abraham's day, it was unambiguously stated that there was no problem with murdering innocent people to get rid of them- and the town of Zoar was only spared because Lot didn't think he could run all the way to the mountains.
So the notion of divine mercy on Yahweh's part doesn't hold water, but it fits in perfectly with the Paulian notion of, essentially, slavery to the will of a horrid monster, that you might be spared its wrath. You see this in the treatment of Satan in mainstream Christianity. Remember that snake from Eden? Many Christians refer to it as being Satan. That makes little sense. Satan (the actual supernatural entity, not simply the label) only three times: telling Yahweh to keeping pushing Job to test his faith, accusing Joshua at the dawn of his leadership to test his mettle, and tempting Jesus to see if he can resist the pressures of mortality. Satan, in Christianity (and the Judaism of the time) is essentially God's distinct attorney; the title "the adversary" is used in its legal sense. Modern Christianity likes to conflate him with Ahriman, but he's much closer to a benevolent (well, loyal to Yahweh, at least) Mara.
How is that relevant? Because it suggests that the Incarnation wasn't about redeeming humanity, but about actually earning their loyalty- Yahweh finally putting some skin in the game and showing the benevolent side people had been praising for a thousand years. In a word, Yahweh had come to see his own prior evils, and sought to make amends- Jesus's words about forgiveness were never meant to apply only to human sins.
Would a good god slaughter innocent people because they happened to be in the way? Good question, but here's a better one: would a good human forgive a god who was seeking reconciliation?
