Is this a genuine fallacy or just a difference in moral philosophies?

I was talking with a family member the other day, and the conversation ended up going into religious conversation. I'm not religious myself, though I'm not dismissive of it either, while my family member is quite religious. We ended up talking about the story of Job, and their argument about it has stuck with me as it seems really off, and while I can explain why, I feel like there is a simpler name I can use rather than needing to explain the whole argument and why it's flawed.

For context in the story of Job, Job was a well-off man who was extremely pious. One day, Satan made a deal with God that Job's piety comes from his belief that God blessed him with this success, and if Satan were to take away everything Job had, he would denounce God. God agrees, so long as Job isn't killed, and so Satan soon makes Job lose all his land and wealth, all his children, becomes extremely sick, but despite all of his suffering, still actively praises God. Eventually he does begin to doubt God somewhat after some friends talk with him, but instead of jumping over to doubting instantly, he prays in the hopes of asking God what is the point of all this suffering, wondering if it's punishment for some sin he committed. God responds, praises Job on his faith, and through their talk Job comes to understand that humans are simply unable to understand the incomprehensible extent of God's plans. Afterwards, God restores him to health, gives him twice as much wealth and land as he lost, gives him 10 new children, and a long life and the story ends.

My question is this. In our conversation, my family member argued that God was justified in making Job suffer through the loss of his children, sickness, and a loss of all he had worked for, because he had absolute 100% confidence in Job staying pious and even gave him twice as much as he had lost as a reward for not denouncing him. Something about that seemed fallacious to me, the idea that if you have absolute confidence in a good outcome that will negate any bad actions taken or pain inflicted on others in order to obtain that good outcome, that plan is worth following despite that it will inflict pain and suffering on other people. 

I have no intent on permanently changing their opinion of God/religion, but I want to be aware of any logical fallacy in the argument so that, if a similar discussion happens in the future, I can recognize it when it happens and understand why it's flawed reasoning. There seems to be overall some sort of appeal to authority-esque fallacy, that "It's justified because God is the ultimate and all knowing god, so it's justified for him even if it wouldn't be for a human to do the same thing" as well as elements of Alleged Certainty(I think?), as God didn't actually know for 100% fact that Job would stay pious and only had confidence that he would which still leaves open the potential that he was wrong about his trust, which an authority figure shouldn't be playing around with.

However it's specifically the "It's justified because he obtained more than he lost" element that bugged me, as it dismisses the experience of having to go through all that loss as though he just forgets any pain even happened afterwards because "He lost 100 stuff, but gained 200 stuff so in the end he gained overall". It's especially clear with the children, as getting 10 new children to replace his 10 lost children isn't going to "negate" losing those first 10 children, as they were individuals he had emotional bonds with that were forever lost, not just some material thing you can replace with a copy.

Of course literally it's just a story meant to deliver a moral message and Job isn't actually a living individual with a complex emotional state and mind, but our conversation was in the context of if it was actually real and Job was a real genuine living individual with all the complexity of a real person. 

Is that actually a fallacy or is it more just a difference in philosophies, that they are more consequentialist in their moral ideas, the ultimate outcome was not just "good" but twice as much as the start so it's morally justifiable, while I am not?