A brief outline for the question of G-d and suffering

I don’t have time to post the whole argument, but I am posting the outline. I may address the specific approaches in future posts (promises, promises…), but for now, this should suffice for those of understanding.

The outline for the debate on existence of suffering vs. omnipotence and benevolence of G-d:

1. Introduction

• Moshe Rabbeinu and his question
• two schools of thought in Judaism: rational and mystical
• G-d is good; G-d is Good; Good is G-d
• Square triange — is G-d bound by laws of logic? Limitation not on G-d but on the world, stemming from the definition of the world
• synopsis of the three lines of argument
  

2. Rational argument (listen to Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb’s shiur)

• Who is more G-d–like: people or angels?
  
• In the image of G-d — sharing His essential aspects; freedom
• Freedom of will entitles ability to cause suffering, no way around it (square triangle)
• Story of Yosef and brothers
  

3. Intermediate argument (listen to Rabbi Paltiel’s shiur on Samech Vov)

• Can’t know why the reason for creation of the world is what it is, can know what it is (can’t know why a man made the microscope, can know what the purpose of a microscope, built-in into it, is)
• Moshol of fire and burning wood with O₂ vs. stone burning under water — need a place of concealment to reveal the essence
• This worls is a world of concealment for this reason, manifests in:
  — atheism (projection on a screen vs. picture on the wall)
  — free will (including being able to cause suffering)
  — suffering coming from the world itself (natural)
• Right now we are not there (the Messianic Era), but the world is one nekuda, with space, past, present and future as one whole
  

4. Mystical argument (Ch. 26 of Tanya)

• A theist knows that everything comes from G-d, just in revealed vs. in concealed form
• Revealed good cannot come from the essential aspect of G-dliness, since its revelation would either destroy the world or go "through" the world
• Therefore, good from essential aspect of G-dliness must be in a concealed form — packaged in the form of suffering
• Not an excuse for causing or not preventing suffering
  — post factum (b’dieved) vs. a priori (lehatchilo)
  — free will vs. Divine Providence
  — slavery in Egypt: Egyptians accepted the role of slave owners, didn’t have to, despite the fact that it was destined
  — the story of the tzaddik and breakfast
  — it’s about your free will: that’s between you and G-d; what a person is destined to get is between him and G-d, has nothing to do with you
  

5. Summary, answer to Moshe Rabbeinu (“If you know the true cause of suffering, you will stop caring about preventing it.”)

(Sorry for bad formatting. The blog freaked out when I posted the text in a formatted form.)

The outline doesn’t talk about the idea of tzaddik ve’rah loi or the idea of reincarnation. And of course, Chabad Chassidus can destroy all of the above with two words (literally).