Unlike the philosopher, the theologian adopts a position, a dogma, and then commits himself to a defense of that position come what may. While he may display a willingness to defend this dogma, closer examination reveals this to be a farce. His defense consists of distorting and rationalizing all contrary evidence to meet his desired specifications. In the case of divine benevolence, the theologian will grasp onto any explanation, no matter how implausible, before he will abandon his dogma. And when finally pushed into a corner, he will argue that man cannot understand the true meaning of this dogma.
Pity about the old-fashioned use of masculine pronouns and the word "man" as an expression for humankind. This kind of thing jars these days (though given the historical and continuing degree to which religions tend to be patriarchal it is not entirely out of place to use "he" for a generic theologian). That aside, it seems to me one of the most powerful points that should be made - so often, theologians, in trying to preserve some non-negotiable dogma or another, will end up adopting claims that may not be logically inconsistent but are just wildly implausible for anyone who is not already committed to the dogma. And indeed, even they may find that what is required is just not believable.