compassion wouldnt have its merit without the suffering that happened. For example if people in third world countries, althoug perhaps more simple living, did not suffer, people would not be compelled by compassion to assust them. i dont feel this is a standarzation and i dont agree that people should suffer...nor do i feel this is a loving trai by God....in fact, as i mentioned, i did not have a plausibke explanation for this.
You're pondering a permutation of the age-ol' theodicy question: why do people suffer? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the wicked seemingly prosper?
As is typical, the Bible 'shotguns' the answer, such that the reader is able to pick and choose the appropriate verses, depending on their need: it's like selecting a greeting card from a Hallmark Store. Eg, if the person is bad, they point to scriptures saying how the evil-doer will face punishment from God. If the person is good, they use Ecclestiastes ("unforeseen events befall all"). Of course, the Bible offers another answer to the question in Job, too: God is testing you, via Satan, to determine IF you're good or bad, righteous or unrighteous.
In fact, a non-JW scholarly article on the story of Job is written by Robert Sutherland, a Canadian lawyer and OT scholar who's research into the ancient legal codes of Israel shows the story is driven by an ancient legal doctrine called 'the Oath of Innocence', which is completely missed by most JWs.
(It's available as a free download, or for reading on the site. If you don't know what the oath of innocence is, you haven't yet read Job with any insight, since it's an eye-opener.)
But point being, the Bible is a big book of multiple-choice answers, and picking the 'correct' scripture is driven only by the familiarity of the reader with the available options from which to choose. Hence the Bible is a book that allows justification, since the reader is in the driver's seat, and his choice is reflecting his desires, not Gods.