God is good or bad

I thought of another idea. The good and the bad in the world exist to enable human freedom of choice. If there were no good and bad, there would be no meaning to choice (like the parable you once mentioned about the elections in Switzerland). Choice is expressed in two ways, avoid evil (passivity = less relevant to natural evil), and do good (activity). In order for the aspect of "doing good" to be meaningful, bad things need to happen when we are passive, and only our active choices will prevent the bad things (illnesses, disasters, etc.). Activity here is expressed, for example, in research in the medical field or in programs such as TAMA 38, which are intended to strengthen the skeleton of old buildings against earthquakes.

Rabbi, then why did G-d harden Pharaoh and then take revenge on him even though He deprived him of the right to choose? And why did He take revenge on him and all of Egypt?

It is necessary to distinguish between G-d's attributes of being merciful and gracious and His attributes of being long-suffering, full of kindness and truth.
G-d is truly long-suffering, full of kindness and truth, but when several generations do not stop sinning - He deals with them exactly like the law of a rebellious and rebellious son - from the wicked comes / will come a wicked man, and yet G-d pays a good reward even to the children of the children and their children and their descendants and on for dozens of generations. Where will you find such a thing?
The parable of this is that we (the Jews) are all in one boat - one person sins (makes a hole in the ship - we all drown), and therefore we, as a society, with one heart and one mind, must denounce this evil as we burn leaven with all our might - this is the secret. But first of all, everyone must take care of themselves and their families, and then their friends and their surroundings. This prevents disasters that really harm people. As we saw in the "plagues" of Egypt, not a single Jew was harmed at all. Even though there were such great disasters throughout Egypt and among them, not a dog would lick its tongue.

The Holocaust is a disaster that was fulfilled upon us - if we had understood the hint from ourselves, we would have been redeemed from Hitler Adolf's Final Solution, but unfortunately we were forced to absorb great disasters in the souls of millions of Jews from all over the world to teach you that there is “something” that God, the Almighty, is disgusted with us and we must discover it and do His will so that we do not absorb another hateful thought. And this is the only reason we must remember the horrific disaster of the Holocaust not just one day a year but every day. Wake up and do His will, the Blessed One, and if you see that everyone is a sinner, then protect and cleanse your home and your borders from the ”leaven” (It is not enough to sell it, but to destroy it) and you will not be harmed by the coming disaster and the hint to this: “And I will rain on one city and I will not rain on another city, one part will rain and the part on which it does not rain will wither” (Amos 7).

There is a story nowadays that says that Hitler brought secular Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews closer and united. As is known from the story of the taxi, in short:
A rabbi returned from abroad and got into a taxi, when he got in he said hello, brother, to the ”secular” driver. The driver said: Excuse me, Rabbi, but we cannot really be brothers. You are religious and I am secular. The rabbi replied: I know, but my teacher taught me that we are brothers. The driver asked: Who is this teacher? The rabbi replied: Adolf Hitler.

Conclusion - It is not enough to be brothers - we need to be united - each one will destroy the "secularism" within him and thus we will be brothers on the one hand and sons of God on the other.

Oren,
Maybe. But there is still an uncomfortable feeling, because some suffer so that others can have a choice. Sin and Tobias are opposites.
Incidentally, it seems to me that medical research is not really a choice for good but a positive and beneficial action done for the general interest. Perhaps there is a choice for the good of the collective here. The individuals do this for the financial, intellectual, etc. interest.

Moshe,
Pharaoh was punished for what he did. What weighed on his heart was perhaps to educate us, but that is not the reason for the punishment.

Regarding Hitler, if you think that Hitler defines who is a Jew, I disagree with you. Incidentally, he also killed gypsies and homosexuals, and many more Russians (about twenty million) and more. These are demagogic and baseless statements.

True, Hitler killed them in the war but he killed the Jews in the Holocaust.
I certainly accept your opinion about punishing Pharaoh, but why were his people punished along with him? I don't understand from the Torah how they suddenly became slaves, so what if a new king arose in Egypt but they were free.

Regarding the issue that some people suffer, I think most of us suffer from natural evil to one degree or another and at some point in our lives, whether it's various diseases, fires, various weather disasters, etc. Even if there is an egoistic/social interest in doing medical research, it usually comes in addition to an altruistic element. For example, I have friends who work in high-tech who preferred to get involved in the biomedical field even when it's less profitable because they think it contributes more to society than a faster iPhone. And sometimes there are wealthy individuals who finance medical research or medical equipment with their own money. In other words, without diseases (natural evil), people would not be faced with the dilemma of whether to sacrifice themselves (time, money, comfort) in order to cure those diseases (by the way, feeding a sick relative or friend is also a similar dilemma).

In other words, we cannot repay kindness to others unless they have some kind of need (medical, financial, emotional, etc.). If there were no needs and troubles, the choice of charity would be meaningless. And gratitude for kindness would be meaningless.

Moshe, the gypsies and homosexuals were killed in the Holocaust, not in the war. But this is an irrelevant discussion. I have no interest in defining my identity according to the degree of poverty and/or according to Nazi law.

Oren, it still seems not right. Making many people suffer so that others can repay them with kindness. But perhaps it is not right to judge the considerations of God like the considerations of humans in relation to humans.

Continuing this discussion, after reading the weekly Torah portion (Ekeb), two points emerged that could explain the cause of evil:

1. Suffering enables a meaningful choice, because a choice without price is meaningless (for your punishment and for your testing, to know what is in your heart, if not, keep His commandments).

2. Suffering and evil are educational tools that allow a person to be corrected for his own good and for the good of his environment (and you shall know with your heart that when a man afflicts his son, the Lord your God afflicts you)

1-2. This would be true if there were a clear correlation between suffering and evil. But a righteous man and it is bad for him and an evil man and it is good for him neutralizes the possibility of rectifying suffering and including it in our calculations of choice.

What I meant here is that the terms suffering and evil are interchangeable terms (i.e., have the same meaning).
I didn't quite understand what you were saying. What is the difficulty justifying and evil for him and good for him regarding my proposal?

If there is no correlation between doing evil and suffering, then how will suffering make me right? And how will I include it in my considerations of choice? A person can choose good and suffer, so why would he choose good because of suffering?

What I meant was that the very existence of suffering (in its various forms such as physical pain, loss, sadness, fear, shame, guilt, etc.) is first and foremost a negative psychological experience of the soul. The very existence of suffering allows the educator to use it for the future benefit of the trainee (and his environment). Without being able to torment the trainee in some way, it would not be possible to educate him effectively. For example, if soldiers did not suffer from torture, torture could not be used as an educational tool for soldiers. This is expressed in the verse “When a man torments his son, the Lord your God torments you”.

Regarding choice, when a person is in a dilemma between a good and a bad option, when choosing the good option will cause him mental/physical suffering or deprive him of mental/physical pleasure, and nevertheless, he chooses the good option, only then does his choice have meaning. If there was no price for choosing the good (the price is expressed in suffering or the prevention of happiness) then choosing it would have no meaning. Similarly, when choosing a good option prevents suffering from others, then it is more valuable, and when choosing a bad option causes suffering to others, then it is also more valuable (negatively) compared to an alternative reality in which there is no suffering. For example, if hunger did not involve suffering, a person giving charity to the poor so that they could eat would be less valuable compared to a reality in which hunger involves suffering and then charity also prevents the suffering of the poor. Or if rape did not cause suffering to a woman, then someone deciding to rape someone would be less negatively valuable than a reality in which rape involves suffering to the victim.

So you are talking about the ability to suffer and not about actual suffering. The question is not why soldiers who are tortured suffer, but why they are tortured.

Even in the context of choice, choosing good does not always have a price. Sometimes choosing evil does.

In general, it seems to me that these are side benefits and quite marginal of suffering in the world. In my opinion, there is no real explanation here.

The basic condition for the existence of suffering is the ability to experience it. If the soldiers do not experience suffering due to harassment, the question of why they are harassed is already less interesting, it is similar to the question of why soldiers shower in the evening and not in the morning (i.e. there is no theological difficulty here).

Regarding choosing evil when it has a price, on the contrary, when someone chooses a bad option even though it has difficult prices, it sharpens the evil of his choice (the negative value of the choice). In other words, the very existence of suffering prices allows us to attribute a negative or positive value to our choices, depending on the case.

By the way, I did not pretend to claim that these are the only reasons for the existence of suffering, I suppose there are several more that we can think of, and some that we cannot even think of. But even marginal explanations are enough to begin to understand why suffering exists.

It is clear that the ability to experience suffering is a condition, but the question is not about the condition but about the suffering itself.
I accept that there is some explanation here.

In fact, it seems to me that the experience of suffering is the suffering itself, and everything else is external triggers that activate it. For example, when a child touches a hot pot, a chain of physical processes is created that ends in the experience of suffering. The external trigger (contact with a hot pot) is the condition for suffering, and the experience is the suffering itself.

This is semantics that is not important to our discussion. The question is why do people suffer. For them to suffer (for example, let's take pain) two conditions are needed: a nervous system (which creates pain) and the cause of the pain. The question is why the bottom line exists in the world, and therefore an explanation for one of the conditions is not enough.

I am trying to argue that suffering (and all its causes=nervous system+pain factor) are a means to a higher goal such as educating the person, and increasing the person's difficulty when enduring trials.