Let's see how far I can expand the subject.
Given that Yahweh is the judge, jury and executioner for any and all sins (many of which could be considered as "sins" for entirely arbitrary and nonsensical reasons), it presents a rather damning problem. Granting humans free will is all well and good, and it's even better if humans use this free will to do good for their fellow man. Now, what if humans set out to do good in a manner in which Yahweh would disagree? They could make the choice to do what they feel is the right thing, but they have faith that an omnipotent force is breathing down their neck to damn them for all eternity, just because this omnipotent force told its followers to write down some incredibly arbitrary rules that would be obsolete within a millennium or two. Is that free will? Yes, but it's a very twisted form of free will. It's the equivalent of having someone hold you at gunpoint and telling you what to do; you could make the choice to not do what the gunman commands, but a smart person (especially in the presence of a danger that is vastly more obvious than a fairy tale figure) would naturally be inclined to avoid those bullet wounds. That's no longer free will at that point, but rather survival instinct. In other words, people have faith because they're afraid of the consequences of what will happen to them if their faith begins to falter for whatever reason.
I used to fear your God as well. My fear was strong, and I was strongly Catholic as a result. I constantly had to do checks and balances in my head, but for all the wrong reasons. Instead of thinking "Is this the right thing to do? Will I harm others for doing this?", I instead had to think "Will God punish me for this? Will I go to Hell for this?". Luckily, I learned to stop fearing gods since I figured out that religion is an ethnic construct. Religion for the vast majority of people is decided for them based on their nation of origin, as most people don't actively make the decision to follow a particular religion because they prefer it over the other; they only adhere to the religion that they've been brought up with since it's convenient.
I've also heard the argument that the fundamental statutes a deity sets for you are for the purpose of "persuading" humans to do good (or what Yahweh thinks is good in this case) through rule of fear. The ends justify the means, in other words. Well, that's a lot of hoops to jump through just to minimise the damage of free will, isn't it? It would mean that religion and all of the rules that come with it are essentially a soft leash on humanity's whims. So we still have free will, but there's a cap on how much free will we can have before certain dangerous thoughts are had. I don't like that. In fact, I find the very notion insulting to the human race. We can grow and be good to each other without some old dusty book.
I suppose I should give biblical free will some credit, though. After all, it can allow the best Christians to cherry-pick which rules from the Bible are relevant to modern society, which rules are obsolete to modern society, and which rules are the ones that you shout at the worst Christians for "misinterpreting".
If God is omnipotent, then one can logically assume that he is tireless. In other words, God will never tire (physically or otherwise) of his methods or handiwork, as to suggest otherwise would mean that he is not omnipotent.
If God is omnibenevolent, then one can logically assume that he is a perpetual force for good. In other words, God will always have his best intentions and our best interests at heart, as to suggest otherwise would mean that he is not omnibenevolent.
So if God "usually" lets things go naturally, what are the exceptions? Why does he, in his apparent infinite power and kindness, allow these certain exceptions? That's a rhetorical question; I already know that you can't accurately answer that question due to you already being rooted in the belief that we cannot hope to understand how such a higher being operates. This is a higher being that we cannot understand, as we have been created by said higher being to assume a form that cannot readily comprehend the higher being or its ideals. Why is that? Why would we not be born with the knowledge so that we can make the choice whether or not to adhere to these ideals that we'd already have knowledge of? The concept of free will would still be there, but with a lot less messy cases of something being "lost in translation" in scripture or teachings.
To pose an alternative question, I want to ask why you would put so much faith and love into a being that you admit to being beyond our comprehension. If this being is vastly beyond our comprehension, isn't it somewhat arrogant to simply assume that this being has our best interests at heart? Let's assume that a higher being (not necessarily Yahweh) does exist. It could be good, it could be evil, or it simply could be completely indifferent to our existence. How do you figure out which one it is? Is it because it can seemingly communicate incredibly specific ideals to people to transcribe into a holy book, hence making the deity an arbitrary secret keeper? Or is it because you feel as though you should "love" this being out of fear of what you think it's going to do to you if you don't?
Yes, but I know you already understand that this cuts both ways. One bad day has equal potential to make someone learn a valuable lesson and turn over a new leaf, or to burn down the forest that leaf came from because they have nothing to lose anymore.
I can see the benefit, though. If I were to pretend to be a god (I have to think like one when I write for certain characters in my literary project, after all), I would let a touch of chaos loose every now and then to remind humans how to be kind to each other in times of strife. Of course, I imagine I wouldn't make for the most benevolent god, so it'd only be to balance out some of the less savoury things that I'd do.