Thanks for your reply, and for being open to candid exchanges. I thought Mahoney's simple advice very appropriate. He said better than I in a few lines, what my whole post didn't accomplish!
Regarding the silence from God, I offered those thoughts from OC because you'd said 'I can take the suffering but I can't take Him not telling me why I suffer. He could've told me what was going to happen like a good parent would but He knew the traps in my life and let them happen and SAID NOTHING ABOUT THEM.' Now, I do know what you mean, but I don't think there is NO light at all from scripture on this point. It's about whether you yourself cotton on to what God IS saying, through these experiences.
The longer I live, the more I realise that 'suffering' is commonplace for members of the human race. The reason for this, is the presence of sin. Without sin there would be no corruption, no selfishness, no need, no misery, no death, no disability, no confusion - the list goes on.
The challenge for those of us who know God, is our RESPONSE to situations which damage, torment, provoke, hurt, frighten, rob, violate - and so on - the integrity of our peace, person, family, income, place - and so on.
What we find, sadly, is that we are the same as other people at heart (Matt 15:19, Mark 7:21), unless we have died with Christ. That thought is the import of Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. The word 'affections' there, is not a reference to the nice things we like only, but also to the propensity of the mind of the flesh to respond to adverse situations in a fallen ways: to retaliate, to wish ill, to desire revenge, to entertain self-pity, to justify ourselves or do anything negative to ourselves, contrary to showing forth the glory of God.
This 'glory of God' can be a result of quiet suffering (putting up with, bearing) of naturally occurring situations which arise from interaction with other people (not necessarily Christians), because of which we cannot do things they way we prefer, or, which force us to leave our comfort zone without complaining about it. I'm not talking about bearing frank persecution - I just mean being incommoded daily by other people's needs or preferences, over which we have no control. By these, we are made more like Christ, and in these, we are to rejoice, thank, praise and worship Him, and seek grace to bring Him glory through our overcoming faith.
Again, Oswald Chambers addresses this:
THE TEST OF LOYALTY (December 18th)
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God." Romans 8:28
It is only the loyal soul who believes that God engineers circumstances. We take such liberty with our circumstances, we do not believe God engineers them, although we say we do; we treat the things that happen as if they were engineered by men. To be faithful in every circumstance means that we have only one loyalty, and that is to our Lord. Suddenly God breaks up a particular set of circumstances, and the realization comes that we have been disloyal to Him by not recognizing that He had ordered them; we never saw what He was after, and that particular thing will never be repeated all the days of our life. The test of loyalty always comes just there. If we learn to worship God in the trying circumstances, He will alter them in two seconds when He chooses.
Loyalty to Jesus Christ is the thing that we "stick at" to-day. We will be loyal to work, to service, to anything, but do not ask us to be loyal to Jesus Christ. Many Christians are intensely impatient of talking about loyalty to Jesus. Our Lord is dethroned more emphatically by Christian workers than by the world. God is made a machine for blessing men, and Jesus Christ is made a Worker among workers.
The idea is not that we do work for God, but that we are so loyal to Him that He can do His work through us - "I reckon on you for extreme service, with no complaining on your part and no explanation on Mine." God wants to use us as He used His own Son.'
Thus he explains, possibly, another aspect of God's silence in your situation.
There's also the prodigal son's situation. I'm not suggesting that the details of his behaviour apply to you, but at a deeper level, he had some things correct, and some things incorrect. Correctly, he had a right to his inheritance, but incorrectly, he thought he knew how to disburse it. It was not until he was sharing pig-food in a that very low-paid job, he was able to crystallise his thoughts by a completely different set of parameters; which when he was longing to be his own boss, he had never considered - that it is, actually, a huge burden to be responsible for oneself, separate from one's father's oversight and provision.
In his story also, when he finally delivered his confession and offer of service, after his father had raced to meet him, his father didn't have anything to say, either. But, we know his father had been delighted by his return, when he instructed the servants to prepare a feast.
Surely this is an even more important revelation to the younger son, who has been through such a rough time, and grown up so much in the process, while he was out of touch?
What he discovered experiencially, was truth about himself AND about his father, and, against his own previous judgement he found himself able to be in agreement with his father about both truths - which are, of course, one.