Give me an example, please!

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon View Post
However, God took Job’s possessions away in order to strengthen Job’s faith. This is like a parent forcing his children to do chores to teach them discipline.

No way. Not according to the Bible. It was a capricious act.

It was not a capricious act. (Primarily because God never acts capriciously.) It had a purpose, which was to provide an example of the rewards of righteousness in the face of suffering.

But the problems do not stop here. There were other beings affected by this “bet”. The animals, who are blameless in any sense of the word, and Job’s children, who were simply used as “tools” to bring misfortune and misery to Job.

And all the “co-lateral damage” was rewarded, though unstated in the story proper due to the literary style chosen by the human author, as explained by the sole interpreter of scripture (the Magisterium).

The animals don’t need reward, as they are non-persons.

The person who suffered were rewarded superabundantly by God however He did that.

According to Catholic teachings, all human have innate “dignity” and to use humans as “teaching tools” deprives them of this dignity.

PERSONS are not to use persons as tools.

God may use what is His in any way He chooses, as He will always reward beyond expectation any suffering of ANY righteous, or unrighteous (in the “other direction”), person.

 

[ateista]

Yes. (with the possible exception of how you define “gratuitous”)
The next threshhold is defining “greater good”.
That’s where the problem often lies for humans. They fail to view the “greater good” from a perspective that *encompasses a state of eternal existence * - they see only temporal/earthly consequences. God knows the greater good for each because He can see all of eternity; we cannot.

I accept this for the sake of this discussion. Though I have to remark that the Christians assert that God is benevolent, and they have no knowledge of those “eternal good things” either. So at best it is an impasse. Of course I can bring up millions of examples which look like a corollary of a non-benevolent God’s existence.

Mathematical, logically required, (I’m not sure mercy, love, forgiveness, joy, etc. can be contained under the categories of mathematical and logical!) I’d also change the word “required” to “given”. It isn’t necessarily required; it may be given to us as an opportunity to grow spiritually and to merit greater eternal reward.

No, it cannot be sustituted. No matter how great a “reward” is given, if the prior pain and suffering is not a logical necessity, the reward is irrelevant.

Please understand, this whole problem stems from the problem of “evil”. God allows pain, suffering and moral evil - that cannot be disputed. It can only be morally justified if the pain, suffering and moral evil is logically necessary. An unconnected “greater reward” even “infinitely greater reward” cannot justify retroactively the prior suffering.

But I do go along with your premise that God’s “knowledge and power allow Him to mete out the precise amount of pain and suffering to create some greater good.” And, contrary to you, I believe that is exactly what He does.

It is possible. But your stipulation is contradictory to the Church’s teaching - namely that God rarely ever interferes with our existence and never with our free will. What you say here is that God constantly “tinkers” with our free will.

Imagine a father beating his child for no discernible reason. Suppose that a greater good will come out of it, (I cannot see any good, and neither can you), but maybe God does. After the necessary amount of pain is administered, God must stop the beating, lest it becomes excessive. And that is interference with the father’s free will.

And there are millons of such actions every second (both moral and natural instances). God must interfere millions of times every second. That is denied by the Church’s doctrine.

Our difference arises when it comes to acknowledging who is that is capable of defining and recognizing what the “greater good” is. I believe it is God (as do most who believe in God).
I think you consider the “greater good” must conform to the boundaries of your concept of reality - and to the line of your reasoning within those boundaries. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

I was willing to stipulate that our understanding is insufficient. And that leads directly to God’s constant interference with our free will. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

I know you are atheist, ateista. But your argument concerns God and His involvement in our human history according to Christian belief (I realize it’s only theoretical in your eyes). For an atheist, the highest logic is human logic; for someone who believes in God, there is a far greater logic, God’s “logic”.

There is only one logic. God’s logic is just as oxymoronic as military “intelligence”. God may have more facts to operate with, and a better horizon to evaluate “stuff”, but the laws of logic are the same.

If something is morally evil for humans, then it is also morally evil for God. “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” is nonsense.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nita View Post
But ateista, you’re talking about beings without free will - where the choice is not theirs, but programmed/controlled by God.

According to Catholic doctrine: Humans = body and soul
Soul = principle of physical life and principle of spiritual life

Spiritual life = intellect and free will

The soul part (of the human) in your hypothesis would not have the full principle of spiritual life that we have. They’d have intellect only, not free will – a different soul from ours, and thus a different being.

Nita
No, I don’t agree. According to the Catholic teaching the angels are purely “spiritual” beings, and yet they retain their free will. Likewise the human souls created directly in heaven would have their free will intact.

Human souls are NOT created in heaven. We are created “BODY AND SOUL” at conception.

The angels have free will, but they can never change their minds (their intellect’s) as we can.

However, all this is really hair-splitting. Why would God create fallible “humans” when he could have created just the souls and spare all this “hustle”?

Because He didn’t.

Your “wants” don’t change reality.

God didn’t create “infallible humans” because then they wouldn’t be human, by definition.

God wanted, for whatever reason, to create beings with both free will and the opportunity (for a short time) to change their mind’s (change what they will to do).

Why? Ask God. But that’s what happened, and your self-serving (as it would allows you call God “dead”) conjecture doesn’t change a thing.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nita View Post
Mathematical, logically required, (I’m not sure mercy, love, forgiveness, joy, etc. can be contained under the categories of mathematical and logical!) I’d also change the word “required” to “given”. It isn’t necessarily required; it may be given to us as an opportunity to grow spiritually and to merit greater eternal reward.

No, it cannot be sustituted. No matter how great a “reward” is given, if the prior pain and suffering is not a logical necessity, the reward is irrelevant.

The suffering (pain) felt by humans is always the reaction of having something we don’t own taken from us which we think is ours (which we think is “owed” us).

ANY reward from God is infinitely greater than this self-generated reaction to being shown (by example) that we don’t own what we think we own!

Please understand, this whole problem stems from the problem of “evil”. God allows pain, suffering and moral evil - that cannot be disputed. It can only be morally justified if the pain, suffering and moral evil is logically necessary.

Suffering (the result of evil) is AWAYS logically necessary because if evil exists then suffering must exist, as suffering is the necessary result of any evil.

But “suffering as a bad thing” is a misinterpretation of what suffering actually is. Suffering is ALWAYS a good thing, because it is God showing us that we own nothing, and should not cling to what is not ours.

An unconnected “greater reward” even “infinitely greater reward” cannot justify retroactively the prior suffering.

That statement has no meaning whatsoever. Why? Because an “infinitely greater (meaning ‘INFINITELY VERY VERY GOOD’) reward” is ALWAYS justified in ANY case of “pain”.

Show me how your statement means whatever it is that you think it means?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nita View Post
But I do go along with your premise that God’s “knowledge and power allow Him to mete out the precise amount of pain and suffering to create some greater good.” And, contrary to you, I believe that is exactly what He does.

It is possible. But your stipulation is contradictory to the Church’s teaching - namely that God rarely ever interferes with our existence and never with our free will. What you say here is that God constantly “tinkers” with our free will.

God never violates our free will. But He is perfectly capable (omnipotence, remember!?) of arranging His non-person creation to lead us, like any good teacher leads us, toward doing what is best for us.

Imagine a father beating his child for no discernible reason. Suppose that a greater good will come out of it, (I cannot see any good, and neither can you), but maybe God does. After the necessary amount of pain is administered, God must stop the beating, lest it becomes excessive. And that is interference with the father’s free will.

And there are millons of such actions every second (both moral and natural instances). God must interfere millions of times every second. That is denied by the Church’s doctrine.

A father torturing his child to death produces a greater good, for the child, for the father, and for all of mankind.

The child is given heaven, if he is not in mortal sin. That is an infinte good for the “price” of a short temporal suffering.

The father either learns why his evil actions are evil and is “less evil” himself afterward where he is reward for his knowing why evil is bad leading him to heaven, or he doesn’t learn his lesson and is allowed to choose hell where he becomes an example of the consequences of evil.

Mankind is given one more example of why being evil is a bad thing.

In any case, God allows only precisely the amount of suffering to occur which results in the INFINITE amount of good dispensed.

Of course, ANY amount of suffering is utterly overbalanced by INFINITE GOOD, so what one (me, in this case) means by the word “precise” in the previous sentence is a bit fuzzy.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nita View Post
I know you are atheist, ateista. But your argument concerns God and His involvement in our human history according to Christian belief (I realize it’s only theoretical in your eyes). For an atheist, the highest logic is human logic; for someone who believes in God, there is a far greater logic, God’s “logic”.

There is only one logic. God’s logic is just as oxymoronic as military “intelligence”. God may have more facts to operate with, and a better horizon to evaluate “stuff”, but the laws of logic are the same.

If something is morally evil for humans, then it is also morally evil for God. “Quod licet Iovi, not licet bovi” is nonsense.

What do you mean by “morally evil for humans”?

Do you mean “morally evil for humans to DO?”

Since God can’t DO evil, axiomatically, then there is no possibility of God doing something “morally evil as humans do something morally evil”!

Please specify your verbs better in your descriptions of things.

If God could do something which is morally evil for humans, then it WOULD be morally evil for Him to do something morally evil, but since it’s NOT possible for Him to do that, your sentence is a self-contradiction.

You propose that God can do what God can’t do. That is inherently self-contradictory, and is worthy of the trash bin for so being.

 

[Nita]

It is possible. But your stipulation is contradictory to the Church’s teaching - namely that God rarely ever interferes with our existence and never with our free will. What you say here is that God constantly “tinkers” with our free will.

“Interferes” often has a negative connotation. I would say God “involves Himself” in our existence. Now if you are under the impression the Church teaches God rarely ever involves Himself in our existence, it’s a very false impression. We believe God is continually working in our lives.
(Catholicism is theistic, not deistic.)

In regards to our free will, I didn’t say God continually tinkers with it. Again, “tinkering” has a negative connotation. God never takes away our free will – but He continually works in our lives to try and lead us to make the right free will choices.

If you offer your child a candy bar if he gets a good mark on his math test – are you “tinkering” with his ability/freedom to decide on his own whether or not to study?? Maybe you see it that way. I don’t. I would consider it as doing what I can (involving myself) to help him make the right choice (to exercise his free will wisely) - namely to study. I have not taken away, or taken over control of his ability to choose; I have worked to influence him to choose wisely.

Imagine a father beating his child for no discernible reason. Suppose that a greater good will come out of it, (I cannot see any good, and neither can you), but maybe God does. After the necessary amount of pain is administered, God must stop the beating, lest it becomes excessive. And that is interference with the father’s free will.

It is not interference with the father’s free will; it is interference with the physical act of beating. Unless he’s undergone some sort of conversion, the father probably still wills to beat his child; God is just preventing him from carrying out what he continues to will.

And there are millons of such actions every second (both moral and natural instances). God must interfere millions of times every second. That is denied by the Church’s doctrine.

The Church does not deny that God can intervene in physical actions. Sometimes the intervention is miraculous - but most times it’s less obvious.

 

[Sarpedon]

Job 2:3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, **though you incited me **against him to ruin him without any reason.”

“Incited me?” So God can be influenced? “Without any reason?” God’s own words!

Due to the start of the school week, my responses will be sporadic. I only have time to anwser this for now.

In your quote, it sounds as if God is afflicting Job without cause. However, it can also be read as though it is the devil who is afflicting Job without cause:

“And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him**,** without any reason.”

Notice how the addition of the comma affects the meaning of the sentence (although it is not necessary for the alternate reading). Some Bible versions I have seen include the comma, others do not. I am in no position to evaluate ancient biblical languages, and I suspect that you are not as well. Additionally, ancient languages often lack commas or other grammatical constructions that make the meaning clear. The passage is clearly ambiguous, since two meanings can be read into it, regardless of the comma.

This demonstrates the importance of having an infallible authority to interpret scripture. Simply put, it is impossible for people to reach any agreement or certainty on the meaning of a particular passage. If God left us a largely ambiguous book to be our sole guide to truth, then He did quite a bad job.

As for God being influenced, it is true that God cannot change or be influenced. However, the Book of Job was written as poetry intended for a wide audience. This reference is simply a literary effect used to make the story intelligible. God came to save everyone, not only the small number of people capable of philosophically comprehending the concepts of divine immutability and timeless existence.

 

[ateista]

Due to the start of the school week, my responses will be sporadic. I only have time to anwser this for now.

Please concentrate on school. It is much more important than any internet conversation.

In your quote, it sounds as if God is afflicting Job without cause. However, it can also be read as though it is the devil who is afflicting Job without cause:

“And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him**,** without any reason.”

Agreed, but with God’s explicit permission. It cannot be construed as a “natural” occurence, with God’s implicit permission.

Notice how the addition of the comma affects the meaning of the sentence (although it is not necessary for the alternate reading). Some Bible versions I have seen include the comma, others do not. I am in no position to evaluate ancient biblical languages, and I suspect that you are not as well. Additionally, ancient languages often lack commas or other grammatical constructions that make the meaning clear. The passage is clearly ambiguous, since two meanings can be read into it, regardless of the comma.

This demonstrates the importance of having an infallible authority to interpret scripture. Simply put, it is impossible for people to reach any agreement or certainty on the meaning of a particular passage. If God left us a largely ambiguous book to be our sole guide to truth, then He did quite a bad job.

Yes, I agree with this assessment. I am sure you will understand that I consider the Bible as fully of human origin, and the ancient writers did not write about events to which they were first-hand witnesses.

As for God being influenced, it is true that God cannot change or be influenced. However, the Book of Job was written as poetry intended for a wide audience. This reference is simply a literary effect used to make the story intelligible. God came to save everyone, not only the small number of people capable of philosophically comprehending the concepts of divine immutability and timeless existence.

Well, I agree that it is not a reliable first-hand witness account, rather a literary “trick” which may or may not have deeper implications.

---

But, let’s concentrate on the point at hand. The usual defense against the problem of “evil” is that it is conceivable that some good cannot be achieved without resorting to some pain and suffering, even taking God’s omnipotence into consideration.

An example was (that I have seen a few times) that one can enjoy a glass of water much more after running a marathon, than just having a glass of water to alleviate “regular” thirst. It is not a serious example. While it is true that the glass of water does feel much better after such exertion, and thus the “pain” of extended thirst is logically necessary for the extra pleasure of drinking that water, this example is still flawed. I do not accept the principle that being sick first and then recuperating is “better” than being healthy all the time.

So I am at a loss. Hard as I try, I cannot come up with a scenario when some “pain and suffering” is **logically needed **to achieve some good.

 

[ateista]

“Interferes” often has a negative connotation. I would say God “involves Himself” in our existence. Now if you are under the impression the Church teaches God rarely ever involves Himself in our existence, it’s a very false impression. We believe God is continually working in our lives.
(Catholicism is theistic, not deistic.)

Based upon many conversations you are in a minority. Not that it is a problem for me.

In regards to our free will, I didn’t say God continually tinkers with it. Again, “tinkering” has a negative connotation. God never takes away our free will – but He continually works in our lives to try and lead us to make the right free will choices.

Forgive me for saying this: “when I look at the horrible amount of rapes, murders and tortures he does a lousy job”.

If you offer your child a candy bar if he gets a good mark on his math test – are you “tinkering” with his ability/freedom to decide on his own whether or not to study?? Maybe you see it that way. I don’t. I would consider it as doing what I can (involving myself) to help him make the right choice (to exercise his free will wisely) - namely to study. I have not taken away, or taken over control of his ability to choose; I have worked to influence him to choose wisely.

That is a good way to put it. But I don’t see this kind of mild and gentle persuation in practice.

It is not interference with the father’s free will; it is interference with the physical act of beating. Unless he’s undergone some sort of conversion, the father probably still wills to beat his child; God is just preventing him from carrying out what he continues to will.

Well, that is where the proverbial substance really hits the fan. No, I don’t think that God “stops” the hypothetical father’s hand when the child is “merely” rendered to vegetative state for his whlole life. I don’t see that God stops the rapists when the victim was “raped enough”, but not excessively. I don’t see God stopping the torturers when enough electricity was appied to victim’s private parts to achieve some “greater good”. I don’t see that God stops the tornadoes or the hurricanes or the earthquakes when “enough” victims perished to achieve some greater good. I see none of that.

If you do (which is your prerogative), then I will respectfully disengage from this conversation.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nita View Post
It is not interference with the father’s free will; it is interference with the physical act of beating. Unless he’s undergone some sort of conversion, the father probably still wills to beat his child; God is just preventing him from carrying out what he continues to will.

Well, that is where the proverbial substance really hits the fan. No, I don’t think that God “stops” the hypothetical father’s hand when the child is “merely” rendered to vegetative state for his whlole life. I don’t see that God stops the rapists when the victim was “raped enough”, but not excessively. I don’t see God stopping the torturers when enough electricity was appied to victim’s private parts to achieve some “greater good”. I don’t see that God stops the tornadoes or the hurricanes or the earthquakes when “enough” victims perished to achieve some greater good. I see none of that.

Poor ateista. If the world isn’t to your liking, God doesn’t exist. A sensible point of view, fully supported by “your eyes”. It’s also a fully unsupportable point of view when one takes 3 minutes to consider what “God” means unobscured by the pain of not being “saved” from “a (fallen) father’s hand” by “one’s (heavenly) Father” while you still live.

But then, frustrated vengeance on one’s persecutors is why you’re here, isn’t it?

 

[Nita]

Well, that is where the proverbial substance really hits the fan. No, I don’t think that God “stops” the hypothetical father’s hand when the child is “merely” rendered to vegetative state for his whlole life. I don’t see that God stops the rapists when the victim was “raped enough”, but not excessively. I don’t see God stopping the torturers when enough electricity was appied to victim’s private parts to achieve some “greater good”. I don’t see that God stops the tornadoes or the hurricanes or the earthquakes when “enough” victims perished to achieve some greater good. I see none of that.

If you do (which is your prerogative), then I will respectfully disengage from this conversation.

Big misunderstanding here.
What I said was based on what I thought YOU were setting up as the actions occurring in your hypothetical case.

Quote:
After the necessary amount of pain is administered, God must stop the beating, lest it becomes excessive. And that is interference with the father’s free will.

I thought you were establishing as part of the scenario that God steps in and prevents the father from going farther and killing the child. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But then, what were the actions of God that you were setting up in your analogy.

My point was that, if God chose to intervene in a way that stopped the father from physically killing the child, He would not be taking away/controlling the father’s free will.

Nita

 

[ateista]

Big misunderstanding here.
What I said was based on what I thought YOU were setting up as the actions occurring in your hypothetical case.

I thought you were establishing as part of the scenario that God steps in and prevents the father from going farther and killing the child. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But then, what were the actions of God that you were setting up in your analogy.

Well, misunderstandings do happen.

No, that was not my point. Even if some pain and suffering would result in some greater good, there must be a precise amount to achieve that goal. A little less pain, and the good does not come to pass. A tad more, and it is not logically necessary any more. That is the point.

How can God assure that in millions of cases every second the mathematically precise amount of pain is administered without interfering in some way? And that interference (which is neutral in this instance, does not carry any negative connotations) is preventing what the wrongdoer wants / wishes / wills to do. That is interference with the perp’s free will, plain and simple.

Mind you, I would not mind at all, if God would always prevent all these evil deeds. We - as a soceity - keep on interfering with the bad people’s desire to commit evil acts. We put them into confinement, for example. And that is perfectly fine.

My point was that, if God chose to intervene in a way that stopped the father from physically killing the child, He would not be taking away/controlling the father’s free will.

Wouldn’t he now? Do you say that a rapist / murderer does not violate the free will of the victim? The will of the victim is not to get raped or murdered. The action / will of the perpetrator makes the will of the victim impossible to carry out.

Free will is not free if there is no physical way to carry out what one wishes to do.

 

[Nita]

Wouldn’t he now? Do you say that a rapist / murderer does not violate the free will of the victim? The will of the victim is not to get raped or murdered. The action / will of the perpetrator makes the will of the victim impossible to carry out.

No, the rapist does not violate the free will of the victim. He violates/controls her body, but not her free will. No human can get into your soul and take control of what you are personally “will-ing” with your heart and mind. (No human can, and God won’t.)
That victim is not choosing to get raped, not choosing to participate in the rape. Her “choosing” (free will) has not been taken over by the rapist.

I think much of our disagreement stems from two different definitions for “free will”. I’ve only dabbled in philosophy (and forgotten half of the dabbling ), but I think the Catholic definition derives from scholastic philosophy, which in turn, I believe, goes back to Aristotelian philosophy. But, good heavens, don’t ever quote me on that . (I’m making dinner and doing this inbetween getting the meat on and the vegetables cooked - so don’t have time to research further at the moment.)

Free will is not free if there is no physical way to carry out what one wishes to do.

Yes, the will is still free even if the person is unable, for whatever reason, to carry out what they “will” (not “wish”) to do.

“Wish” isn’t a strong enough term. I might wish I was in sunny Florida without making a willed decision to go to Florida.

Nita

 

[Nickkname]

So I ask you to present an example, where God wishes to bring forth a “greater good”, which is impossible to do without inflicting / allowing some “evil” to happen.

The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[twb1621]

If you don’t mind my popping in here a second, in regard to "the greater good”, God can intervene and stop the doer of evil if it is His determination to do so, say perhaps if His plan calls for the victim to survive in a matter where the victim would not survive otherwise. This doesn’t take away the free will of the sinner because the action would have taken place at the sinners choice had God not stepped in.

But it is the case that he or she who does evil in a manner that victimizes another will serve by His justice and the victim will be embraced by God.

 

[ateista]

No, the rapist does not violate the free will of the victim. He violates/controls her body, but not her free will. No human can get into your soul and take control of what you are personally “will-ing” with your heart and mind. (No human can, and God won’t.)
That victim is not choosing to get raped, not choosing to participate in the rape. Her “choosing” (free will) has not been taken over by the rapist.

I think much of our disagreement stems from two different definitions for “free will”. I’ve only dabbled in philosophy (and forgotten half of the dabbling ), but I think the Catholic definition derives from scholastic philosophy, which in turn, I believe, goes back to Aristotelian philosophy. But, good heavens, don’t ever quote me on that . (I’m making dinner and doing this inbetween getting the meat on and the vegetables cooked - so don’t have time to research further at the moment.)

Well, then let’s call it the freedom to act. Whatever I want is irrelevant. Whatever I am able to do is relevant.

Of course, this is all hair-splitting. Free will presupposes that a person has at least two venues, which are open to him as possible actions to be taken, is aware of these two possible routes, and is not coerced into choosing one, nor is prevented from choosing one.

If there is only one possible course of action to “choose”, the concept of free will becomes nonsensical.

 

[twb1621]

Well, then let’s call it the freedom to act. Whatever I want is irrelevant. Whatever I am able to do is relevant.

Of course, this is all hair-splitting. Free will presupposes that a person has at least two venues, which are open to him as possible actions to be taken, is aware of these two possible routes, and is not coerced into choosing one, nor is prevented from choosing one.

If there is only one possible course of action to “choose”, the concept of free will becomes nonsensical.

Our common sense tells us in some cases what will happen without intervention. In law, if a person plans a serious crime and is caught in the planning stage, they can be convicted of the crime just as if it happened even if intervention took place. We can not entertain the notion that we have the common sense to perform justice in this way and yet claim God has not more of the ability to make such a determination or take such action. The decision to perform in sin or crime if you will is the choice and it doesn’t necessarilly require the action to take place.

 

[Nita]

Well, then let’s call it the freedom to act. Whatever I want is irrelevant. Whatever I am able to do is relevant.

Of course, this is all hair-splitting. Free will presupposes that a person has at least two venues, which are open to him as possible actions to be taken, is aware of these two possible routes, and is not coerced into choosing one, nor is prevented from choosing one.

It’s not hair-splitting. How can two parties communicate if they don’t know what the other person means (defines the particular terms)?

If there is only one possible course of action to “choose”, the concept of free will becomes nonsensical.

Of course. Altho, those instances may be very rare. Being born comes to mind!
We just disagree on what constitutes a “possible course of action to choose”.

If you are going to debate Catholic teaching, you have to do it according to what they mean by the terms of their teaching.

Nita

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Forgive me for saying this: “when I look at the horrible amount of rapes, murders and tortures he does a lousy job”.
{snip]

Why do you think God must intervene in these circumstances to justify Him being labeled benevolent?

I believe a number of example have already been posted wherein a “benevolent” parent stands aside while a child is allowed to experience an evil. Should the parent be denied this attribute (benevolence) because they allowed an evil?