As for me, I will continue to believe that "God is LOVE" (1 John 4:8,16) and that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) and that God is kind to ungrateful people and evil people. (Luke 6:35), and that through His Son, He teaches us to love and pray for our enemies and do good to them.
So will I, but I will also believe all the other things that God has said about Himself. I will not believe less than you do. I will simply believe the rest, which you reject without necessity. No contradiction exists, except in minds insufficiently committed to reasoning from all the data.
I cannot see such a LOVE and kindness in a god who kills people and causes them injury and pain, and who causes or permits the torture and rape of little girls and women in order to fulfill some mysterious higher purpose which he never reveals and which never becomes known.
In this we certainly differ, but not in the sense that you imagine. You try to, but cannot, escape the fact that we both believe that God allows torture and rape. The very fact that it occurs on His watch makes this indisputable. He can prevent it, but does not. We both agree.
We only disagree on why He does not intervene.
To you it is because He values natural laws more than He values people (since He will not let Himself interfere with them in order to save a life); and He values the free will of criminals above the free will of their victims (since the victim, if allowed her free will, would not be victimized). God lets men deprive her of her preference, but God is unwilling to deprive the pervert of His preference. This is the god of the theology you have espoused here.
To me it has nothing to do with God binding Himself by natural laws (if He did this consistently, there would never have been a special creation, an incarnation, a resurrection, nor any other miracles). You say God is loathe to interrupt the natural flow of cosmic laws, yet He has done so very many times, if Christianity is true. Interestingly, He violated natural law in the beginning of Polycarp's martyrdom, by preventing him from being consumed in flames—yet he allowed the saint to bleed to death the same day, when stabbed! God seems almost whimsical in His decisions as to when He will and when He will not suspend natural laws. They certainly are not, to Him, absolutes to bind Him against His purposes.
As for human free will, I agree that God gives men the freedom to choose a relationship with Him or not. This has very little to do with His allowing them to perform particular crimes, however. He could send His angels to deliver the victim from the evil intentions of the perpetrator without interfering one iota in the man's decision whether or not to have a relationship with God. In our dialogue, I have given so many scriptural examples of this from both testaments, which you simply ignore, that it is frustrating to have to repeat this obvious fact.
Your view can only be true if God values some things more than He values human welfare, which is not the case. I would have thought your belief in universal reconciliation would tell you as much! God's commitment to the good of all whom He has created means that He will not allow any harm to come to them that cannot ultimately work for their eternal good, as Paul wrote:
"The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us." (Rom.8:18) and
"Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." (2 Cor.4:17)
I'm still a believer in Paul's theology (which is the same as the theology of Christ and all biblical witnesses). The fact that you or I cannot "imagine" how the millions of calamities occurring around the world could accomplish God's ends is irrelevant to whether or not God can imagine them.
The strength of your argument depends upon the assumption that God cannot understand His own secret counsels until you can understand them, which is why the position cannot rise above unscriptural sentimentality. You say you only go by what Jesus said, but this you do selectively. He said many of the things you disagree with, but you will not let His words determine your beliefs. Even the words of Jesus, like the rest of scripture are subject to your arbitrary editing.