I am sure you realize that those statements are no excuse for refusing to use your human reason to understand the existence and nature and your obligations to an Ultimate Cause.

And saying God's mysteries exceed all human understanding does not mean we cannot know some rational truths about him, e.g., his existence and the major divine attributes. Even the Holy Trinity -- a revealed mystery -- does not entail contradictions of what natural theology enables us to understand naturally about God.

That is, unless you are looking for an excuse to refuse all understanding. Remember, that our reason is also a gift from our Creator. He rightly expects us to use it to trace back from finite effects to him as the Ultimate Cause

No, I do not, since as you all say "God is beyond human understanding" and "God works in mysterious ways.

Your question is so filled with confusion and misdirection that it is hard to know where to begin, since its wording is itself loaded with bias against any reasonable explanation.

This is all based on natural law, which is God's ordinance for his creation as understood by man. Being the Creator, God naturally has dominion over his creatures. By his very nature as composed of body and soul, man is capable of corruption and death unless God provides otherwise. So, in the first instance, everything that happens -- however hard to understand in this life -- must be understood as subordinated to God's providence for our afterlives. This instantly renders much of your constant criticism moot. Thus, even the punishment of whole nations for offending the right-reasoned ordinance of God need not prevent the good in those nations from reaching an eternal reward -- a reward that may be even greater for nobly bearing undeserved earthly suffering.

Moreover, should we, through the deliberate misuse of the God'-given gift of free will, set ourselves dead against all that is good and holy -- even hatred of God himself, then both nature and God himself have every right to redress our self perversions. The natural punishment for, say, adultery is loss of one's spouse and the gaining of alimony payments.

Thus, the supernatural punishment is naturally failure to reach the last end of beatitude God wills for each person, but which would be a grave injustice to give to those willingly undeserving.

Do you ever really try to understand these sorts of matters from God's perspective?

"it is not necessary that God should will anything except Himself"

Where is the part that says "And here is why it's OK for him ot smite those who do not serve him"?

for it has been shown above (I:19:4) that the will of God is the cause of things. Therefore things are necessary, according as it is necessary for God to will them, since the necessity of the effect depends on the necessity of the cause (Metaph. v, text 6). Now it was shown above (I:19:3), that, absolutely speaking, it is not necessary that God should will anything except Himself. It is not therefore necessary for God to will that the world should always exist; but the world exists forasmuch as God wills it to exist, since the being of the world depends on the will of God, as on its cause. It is not therefore necessary for the world to be always

Where does Aquinas explain why God just existing and being infinite makes it right for him to smite people who don't serve his will for his own sake?

How does just existing and being God make him worthy of such servile treatment or justify unless torment for those who do not bow to him?

Were I you, I would want to be extremely sure that the God of classical theism does not exist before trying to tell him that humbling oneself before him is something he has to earn.

Since the question of humbling oneself before God arises on the hypothesis that he does exist, then the given existence of an Infinite Being to whom we owe our very existence should make us very aware of how little we are in his Presence. Being humble is merely a matter of truthfulness in that case.

Are so sure? Give it a shot. Bowing has to be earned, after all.