Whether we like it or not, our discussion is ultimately a slave to logic:
The word “necessarily” demonstrates that the circumstance described is true if shown to be possible even in a single case. If it’s possible in one case, then the statement is true and there is no logical refutation of the claim that God’s will, and the secrets therein that only God knows, can reconcile what you and others perceive as moral or factual contradiction.
Your accusation of contradiction is insufficient to invalidate Christian doctrine. It might give you something to hold onto, something to hope for in a perverse sort of way. But you are not obligated to follow this inverted hope—there is a better way my friend.
The abstract theme of the father/child analogy demonstrates conclusively that argument #1 that God is a hypocrite, ultimately has no logical basis. Likewise, it demonstrates conclusively that argument #2 that God can’t exist because an omnibenevolent Creator cannot create evil, has no logical basis.
This is demonstrated because of the fact that the only condition (C) under which arguments 1 and 2 can be true is if there is no possible way to reconcile the apparent contradiction. The father/child analogy, corresponding with the mathematical breakdown of the content of God’s will into that part which we can know and that part which we can’t know, show that condition C cannot be met. So your argument has no logical basis.
You say that my argument has no logical basis, yet you speak of some God as if it were a fact. So much for a logical basis of an argument. Pathetic.