How benevolent was God to Job’s family? At best, they were mere props to the story.
God, considering creation: "Hmm… I should have some rules in case Adam and Eve rebel. Which they will, because I’m omniscient and already know this.
"How about if they and their descendants randomly and capriciously get a host of infirmities and eventually get sick and die, every single one. Oh, some of those diseases will be absolute agony. And they’ll be distributed randomly, having nothing to do with the person’s actions or morality.
“Since I’m omniscient, I know this will happen, even to innocent children. [God slowly licks a finger and traces it around His nipple]”
Yes, but from my understanding of the Bible, we are all eternal beings. None will be lost.
Do you accept that minor pains might be the result of a plan created by a benevolent omnipotent being? If you do, then where do you draw the line between them?
But, what if, just what if, the bible isn’t remotely supernatural, and was just written by some, ignorant primitives who thought pi = 3.
Asking the obvious question-why should I believe the Bible is true?
I question those that reach a religious conclusion, then redefine problematic words and construct arguments to support the conclusion already assumed.
I draw the line somewhere before painful death for infants.
Somewhere between, “Ouchie!” and the pain of dying of untreated bowel cancer.
Is an all-knowing god incapable of drawing such a line?
Why would a supposedly benevolent creator allow even such minor pains?
The problem is precisely with emotional pain. If nobody cared whether they were in physical pain, physical pain wouldn’t matter.
Sure, the world looks and works exactly like a world without a god or gods in it. That’s even more concise than proposing a god.
Certainly a god is not obviously necessary to explain anything that we observe in the world and positing a explanatory god just leaves you with a set of contradictions that, unsurprisingly, requires a theology to explain away (even though it doesn’t really)
I think Epicurus nailed it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
And I never heard a response to that which convinced me and didn’t rely on circular reasoning and special pleading.
God does give A&E a commandment or rule, the first one ever as stated in the Bible ‘be fruitful and multiply’. This one seems so important that he repeats this after the big reset when Noah gets off the ark. Furthermore Paul and Jesus describes us a spiritual babies, being born and needing milk etc. Basically a spiritual form of be fruitful and multiply. This rule seem to be a guideline for our good, and not a case for rebellion testing.
This brings into question what exactly was the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The word fruit in scriptures sometimes means the outcome, like the fruit of the Spirit and not necessarily physical fruit. Speculation here, the 2nd command, not to eat of the fruit, may have been the opposite, the flip side of the ‘be fruitful and multiply commandment’, the bad that comes from not following God’s suggestion. Thus if so it may be just one commandment, not two. In this we see a like aspect where God test King David not to take a census of his army, and Satan uses the opposite of that to temp King David to do it. Satan here tries to use the negative of what God intends for the good to do harm.
Note what Eve saw in that fruit is very much the very reason today a woman may decide to postpone having children. ‘Good for food’ (not another mouth to feed), Desirable for gaining wisdom (stay in school, work, about to travel freely, not tied down to childcare/husband), Pleasing to the eye (still attractive and available for dating, unattached).
[Throws down, “Mysterious Ways” card] Checkmate!
I’m afraid the game is God Bingo, and “Mysterious Ways” only covers the Free Space.
damn your eyes! Foiled again. 
But really, what is theology other than a massive appeal to “mysterious ways”?
god’s ways are unknowable (except when they are clearly knowable but a certain group of people… and even then not really)
The way I see it is God gives us a physical family so we can see the pattern easier of our spiritual family (God as parent). He allows physical religion with a physical person lets say to confess sins or get spiritual advice, not because that matters a hill of beans, but so we can learn our relationship with God who is invisible to us, but is the real goto person in times of need. Would we understand emotional pain without a physical example? As I look at Jesus on the cross, what hurt more, the physical, or all the people he loves so much turning against him, even from His perspective the Father turns away.
Actually, they are knowable when they align perfectly with what you want.
ah! and unknowable when they conflict with the realities of the world we see?
That’s clever, in the Spinal Tap interpretation of the concept.