Responsibility

[ultimate777]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

If it was made into a TV drama, then it must be true.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_God and decide for yourself.

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

Under the context and with the Jewish understanding of God, that seems a bit odd...
I can understand the guilty under the context of what was happening to them, BUT the Jewish notion of God doesn't really allow for the concept of "divine intervention" after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD ( If I recall correctly...).
Would would God be guilty of though?

[PaulSacramento]

Rather uncalled for.
There are many an atheistic or skeptical view and comment that disturbs me ( Harris comment on Rape VS religion is one for example) and yet, I try my best to be civil and understand that POV.
You may not LIKE an answer to your question, but that doesn't make the answer any less valid.

I seem to be the only one around here that ever admits I made a mistake. Does that mean I am the only one who makes mistakes?

I mistook that Paul had bragged on himself that that what he said was sufficient. Which I thought was incredible arrogance on his part than did not deserve any consideration.
I see now that I was wrong. That is, he did not brag on himself.

If one never fails one never tries.

Understood, no problem
Just an FYI, I may put forth a view that is an answer, but that doesn't mean that I myself may agree with it.
That said, I think that for humans to try and judge a being that they admit, if i exists, is so far beyond their understanding, is not only very arrogant, it doesn't even make sense.

[ultimate777]

Rather uncalled for.
There are many an atheistic or skeptical view and comment that disturbs me ( Harris comment on Rape VS religion is one for example) and yet, I try my best to be civil and understand that POV.
You may not LIKE an answer to your question, but that doesn't make the answer any less valid.

I seem to be the only one around here that ever admits I made a mistake. Does that mean I am the only one who makes mistakes?

I mistook that Paul had bragged on himself that that what he said was sufficient. Which I thought was incredible arrogance on his part than did not deserve any consideration.
I see now that I was wrong. That is, he did not brag on himself.

If one never fails one never tries.

Understood, no problem
Just an FYI, I may put forth a view that is an answer, but that doesn't mean that I myself may agree with it.
That said, I think that for humans to try and judge a being that they admit, if i exists, is so far beyond their understanding, is not only very arrogant, it doesn't even make sense.

I have my doubts you are correct. It may go back to the time I heard that pastor on the radio preach that God was not capricious. Until then I had decided that good and evil were merely what God thougt they were at any time.
If God has imposed limits on himself he has opened himself up to criticism. Reminds me that the ancient Greeks did not think the Fates were answerable even to the gods. (Don't make me explain that, people. To paraphrase Scrooge, "Is there no Google?"

[ultimate777]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

Under the context and with the Jewish understanding of God, that seems a bit odd...
I can understand the guilty under the context of what was happening to them, BUT the Jewish notion of God doesn't really allow for the concept of "divine intervention" after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD ( If I recall correctly...).
Would would God be guilty of though?

I didn't want to do this, but I guess I'll have to do it to get any responses:

I am not going to edit the below. If it confuses you unedited gain the satisfaction of unconfusing yourself. Worthwhile indeed, IMHO.

Jump to: navigation, search
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (August 2011)
The Trial of God
(as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod)
Written by Elie Wiesel
Characters Mendel
Avrémel
Yankel
Berish
Hanna
Maria
Priest
Sam, the Stranger
Original language French (Translated into English by Marion Wiesel)
Genre Drama
Purimshpiel
Setting The fictitious village of Shamgorod in 1649, after a pogrom
The Trial of God (as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod) (first published in English in 1979 by Random House) is a play by Elie Wiesel about a fictitious trial ("Din-Toïre," or דין תּורה) calling God as the defendant. Though the setting itself is fictional, and the play's notes indicate that it "should be performed as a tragic farce,"[2] the events that he based the story on were witnessed first-hand as a teenager in Auschwitz. The play was produced on PBS Television with the title God on Trial.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
1.1 Historical Background
1.2 Genre
1.3 Setting
1.4 Other Lawsuits against God
2 Plot
3 Connections with the biblical book of Job
3.1 Theodicy question
3.2 Forensic themes
3.3 Sam and Job's Friends
4 Productions
5 References
6 Further reading

[edit] Background[edit] Historical BackgroundIn introducing the setting for the play, Wiesel gives us an idea of the provenance of the din torah / trial concept: "Its genesis: inside the kingdom of night, I witnessed a strange trial. Three rabbis—all erudite and pious men—decided one winter evening to indict God for allowing his children to be massacred. I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But nobody cried."[3][4] Robert McAfee Brown elaborates on this strikingly bleak description:

The trial lasted several nights. Witnesses were heard, evidence was gathered, conclusions were drawn, all of which issued finally in a unanimous verdict: the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind. And then, after what Wiesel describes as an "infinity of silence," the Talmudic scholar looked at the sky and said "It's time for evening prayers," and the members of the tribunal recited Maariv, the evening service.[5][6]

[edit] GenreIn his introduction to the play, Robert McAfee Brown notes that Wiesel initially had difficulty in recounting the story in an appropriate form—"It did not work as a novel, it did not work as a play, it did not even work as a cantata."[7] After several attempts, the story was written as a play to be performed around the Jewish festival of Purim.[8] This type of play is commonly known by its Yiddish name Purimschpiel. As Wiesel sets the scene on page one of the play, he notes that it "should be performed as a tragic farce: a Purimschpiel within a Purimschpiel."[9] The Purim play provides the drama with a backdrop of revelry and intense celebration for the Jewish victory of Queen Esther over the genocidal plot of Haman in the book of Esther. Purim calls for masks, feasting, drinking, noisemakers, and the creative re-telling of the Esther victory with enthusiastic jeers at every mention of the character Haman. There is a popularly cited line the Tefilla 7b of the Talmud that it is Jewish duty to drink on Purim until one cannot distinguish between the phrases, "cursed by Haman" and "blessed by Mordecai," which the character Mendel references in the second act of the play.[10][11]

[edit] SettingThe celebratory atmosphere of the Purim is contrasted with the historical setting in Eastern Europe 1649, shortly after a series of pogroms across this area modern day Ukraine and Poland. These pogroms were associated with the Khmelnytsky Uprising, which devastated Jewish villages like the fictitious Shamgorod of the play.[11]

[edit] Other Lawsuits against GodMain article: Lawsuits against God
The idea of suing God is not unique. In 2008, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed suit against God, to force God to stop harming God's creation.[12] In fiction, writers such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky have taken up the motif.

[edit] PlotAs described by author Rosemary Horowitz in her novel, Elie Wiesel and the art of storytelling:

Three wandering minstrels arrive at an inn in the city of Shamgorod on the eve of Purim, a holiday which is replete with disguises and secrets, and which commemorates the defeat of a genocidal plan against the Jewish people. Unbeknownst to the three wanderers, a devastating pogrom has killed all of the city's Jews dead except for Berish the innkeeper, whose wife and sons have been murdered, and his daughter Hanna who has suffered a breakdown as a result of being raped and tortured by the murderous crowd. In the space of three acts, a decision is made to hold a trial of God, a defender of the deity needs to be found, and the trial itself reveals an awful truth about the classical Jewish concept "we are punished because of our sins."[13]

[edit] Connections with the biblical book of Job This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (January 2011)
[edit] Theodicy questionA core concern in both The Trial of God and the book of Job is the theodicy question: how (if at all) can people understand God to be just and good in light of the innocent suffering pervasive in the world? As Robert McAfee Brown expresses the issue, "Surely any God worthy of the name would not only refuse to condone such brutality but would expend all of the divine effort necessary to bring the brutality to a halt, and initiate the work of passionate rebuilding."[14] The issue emerges forcibly in the book of Job, since God is incited "to destroy [Job] for no reason" (Job 2:3).

[edit] Forensic themesIn connection with the theodicean question, both The Trial of God and the book of Job place God on trial. Wiesel’s character Berish declares "I—Berish...accuse Him of hostility, cruelty, and indifference.... He is...He is...guilty! (Pause. Loud and clear) Yes, guilty!"[15] In a similar thematic vein of accusation, Job cries out, "I would lay my case before [God], and fill my mouth with arguments" (Job 23:4). The reason, of course, is that Job is a righteous person who fears God, yet God "multiplies [Job’s] wounds without cause" in a way Job can only describe as murderous (Job 9:17; 16:11-18).

[edit] Sam and Job's FriendsIn a provocative twist, Wiesel conflates Sam (i.e., the Devil) with Job’s friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) from the Hebrew Bible. In the book of Job, the friends provide the voices of theodicy—namely, the ones insistent upon God’s justice despite the problem of suffering. In The Trial of God, Sam presents the very arguments the reader would expect from Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Compare, for example, Sam’s claim that suffering is "all because of our sins"[16] and Eliphaz’s musings in Job 4:7: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."

[edit] ProductionsThe Trial of God was premiered by Bucket Productions at the Bath House Cultural Center in Dallas, Texas on February 2, 2000.[17] It also premiered in New York for the first time on March 31, 2007 at the Makor Theatre and featured "traditional dancers from the Kalaniot Dance Troupe and Klezmer musicians from KlezMITron."[18]

[edit] ReferencesAll page references to The Trial of God refer to the 1995 Shocken Books paperback edition, translated by Marion Wiesel.
^ The Trial of God, p. 54
^ The Trial of God, p. xxv
^ The Trial of God, p. xxv
^ Fewell, Danna Nolan; Phillips, Gary Allen (2008). Representing the irreparable: the Shoah, the Bible, and the art of Samuel Bak. Pucker Art Publications. p. xiii. http://books.google.com/books?id=PMzqAA ... CEEQ6AEwAw. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Brown, Robert McAfee, in the Introduction to The Trial of God, p. vii
^ Hester, David C. (2005). Job. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 40–41. http://books.google.com/books?id=HkmaHa ... wn&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Brown, Robert McAfee, in the Introduction to The Trial of God, p. vii
^ René Camilleri (April 1, 2007). "The trial of God and ours". Times of Malta. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... ours.21608. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Thomas B. Harrison (April 15, 1987). "Wiesel drama seeks meaning in the tragedy". St. Petersburg Times. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/acc ... atl=google. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ The Trial of God, p. 91
^ a b Sternlicht, Sanford V. (2003). Student companion to Elie Wiesel. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 125. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bf-NNe ... ie&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ KPTM Fox 42 (2007-09-17). "Nebraska State Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
^ Horowitz, Rosemary (October 30, 2006). Elie Wiesel and the art of storytelling. McFarland & Company. p. 81. http://books.google.com/books?id=a5Mw60 ... ie&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ The Trial of God, viii
^ The Trial of God, p. 125
^ The Trial of God, p. 134
^ Lawson Taitte (February 3, 2000). "'The Trial of God' proves to be an ordeal for viewers". Dallas Morning News. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc ... l=GooglePM. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Zachary Pincus-Roth (March 29, 2007). "Makor to Present NY Premiere of Elie Wiesel Play". Playbill. http://www.playbill.com/news/article/10 ... iesel-Play. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
[edit] Further readingThomas Pyne (May 20, 1979). "Elie Wiesel puts God in the docket (subscription required)". Los Angeles Times. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/acc ... atl=google. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =486763242"
Categories: 1979 plays1649 in fictionHidden categories: Articles lacking reliable references from August 2011All articles lacking reliable referencesArticles that may contain original research from January 2011All articles that may contain original researchArticles created via the Article Wizard
Personal toolsCreate account Log in NamespacesArticle Talk VariantsViewsRead Edit View history ActionsSearch NavigationMain page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia ShopInteractionHelp About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia ToolboxWhat links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionThis page was last modified on 11 April 2012 at 05:56.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view

[ultimate777]

Thanks.

We always have to ask ourselves, how much do we want God to intervene?
I mean, where do we draw the line?
Should God only intervene when death is on the line? what about adultery or homosexuality or S&M or Bondage? what about an abortion?
How should God intervene? Should he just "zap" the POTENTIAL sinner? ( remember that NO SIN or evil act has been commited yet)
Since God knows all, should he just prevent any potential sinner from being born?
Should he wipe out an entire race or group pf people because he knows ( and we don't of course) what they will do?
How would we judge God then?
Imagine God wiping out millions of Germans in 1932 so that the Nazi's would never have happened, what would people think since the Nazi attrocites would NEVER have been commited all that anyone would have know was that God wiped out millions of people for NO REASON that we know of.

IIIRC some Jewish prisoners at a death camp had a mock trial of God. I saw a TV drama of it. When and Where unknown.
Verdict guilty.

Under the context and with the Jewish understanding of God, that seems a bit odd...
I can understand the guilty under the context of what was happening to them, BUT the Jewish notion of God doesn't really allow for the concept of "divine intervention" after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD ( If I recall correctly...).
Would would God be guilty of though?

I didn't want to do this, but I guess I'll have to do it to get any responses:

I am not going to edit the below. If it confuses you unedited gain the satisfaction of unconfusing yourself. Worthwhile indeed, IMHO.

Jump to: navigation, search
This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. Please add citations from reliable and independent sources. (August 2011)
The Trial of God
(as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod)
Written by Elie Wiesel
Characters Mendel
Avrémel
Yankel
Berish
Hanna
Maria
Priest
Sam, the Stranger
Original language French (Translated into English by Marion Wiesel)
Genre Drama
Purimshpiel
Setting The fictitious village of Shamgorod in 1649, after a pogrom
The Trial of God (as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod) (first published in English in 1979 by Random House) is a play by Elie Wiesel about a fictitious trial ("Din-Toïre," or דין תּורה) calling God as the defendant. Though the setting itself is fictional, and the play's notes indicate that it "should be performed as a tragic farce,"[2] the events that he based the story on were witnessed first-hand as a teenager in Auschwitz. The play was produced on PBS Television with the title God on Trial.

Contents [hide]
1 Background
1.1 Historical Background
1.2 Genre
1.3 Setting
1.4 Other Lawsuits against God
2 Plot
3 Connections with the biblical book of Job
3.1 Theodicy question
3.2 Forensic themes
3.3 Sam and Job's Friends
4 Productions
5 References
6 Further reading

[edit] Background[edit] Historical BackgroundIn introducing the setting for the play, Wiesel gives us an idea of the provenance of the din torah / trial concept: "Its genesis: inside the kingdom of night, I witnessed a strange trial. Three rabbis—all erudite and pious men—decided one winter evening to indict God for allowing his children to be massacred. I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But nobody cried."[3][4] Robert McAfee Brown elaborates on this strikingly bleak description:

The trial lasted several nights. Witnesses were heard, evidence was gathered, conclusions were drawn, all of which issued finally in a unanimous verdict: the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, was found guilty of crimes against creation and humankind. And then, after what Wiesel describes as an "infinity of silence," the Talmudic scholar looked at the sky and said "It's time for evening prayers," and the members of the tribunal recited Maariv, the evening service.[5][6]

[edit] GenreIn his introduction to the play, Robert McAfee Brown notes that Wiesel initially had difficulty in recounting the story in an appropriate form—"It did not work as a novel, it did not work as a play, it did not even work as a cantata."[7] After several attempts, the story was written as a play to be performed around the Jewish festival of Purim.[8] This type of play is commonly known by its Yiddish name Purimschpiel. As Wiesel sets the scene on page one of the play, he notes that it "should be performed as a tragic farce: a Purimschpiel within a Purimschpiel."[9] The Purim play provides the drama with a backdrop of revelry and intense celebration for the Jewish victory of Queen Esther over the genocidal plot of Haman in the book of Esther. Purim calls for masks, feasting, drinking, noisemakers, and the creative re-telling of the Esther victory with enthusiastic jeers at every mention of the character Haman. There is a popularly cited line the Tefilla 7b of the Talmud that it is Jewish duty to drink on Purim until one cannot distinguish between the phrases, "cursed by Haman" and "blessed by Mordecai," which the character Mendel references in the second act of the play.[10][11]

[edit] SettingThe celebratory atmosphere of the Purim is contrasted with the historical setting in Eastern Europe 1649, shortly after a series of pogroms across this area modern day Ukraine and Poland. These pogroms were associated with the Khmelnytsky Uprising, which devastated Jewish villages like the fictitious Shamgorod of the play.[11]

[edit] Other Lawsuits against GodMain article: Lawsuits against God
The idea of suing God is not unique. In 2008, Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed suit against God, to force God to stop harming God's creation.[12] In fiction, writers such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky have taken up the motif.

[edit] PlotAs described by author Rosemary Horowitz in her novel, Elie Wiesel and the art of storytelling:

Three wandering minstrels arrive at an inn in the city of Shamgorod on the eve of Purim, a holiday which is replete with disguises and secrets, and which commemorates the defeat of a genocidal plan against the Jewish people. Unbeknownst to the three wanderers, a devastating pogrom has killed all of the city's Jews dead except for Berish the innkeeper, whose wife and sons have been murdered, and his daughter Hanna who has suffered a breakdown as a result of being raped and tortured by the murderous crowd. In the space of three acts, a decision is made to hold a trial of God, a defender of the deity needs to be found, and the trial itself reveals an awful truth about the classical Jewish concept "we are punished because of our sins."[13]

[edit] Connections with the biblical book of Job This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (January 2011)
[edit] Theodicy questionA core concern in both The Trial of God and the book of Job is the theodicy question: how (if at all) can people understand God to be just and good in light of the innocent suffering pervasive in the world? As Robert McAfee Brown expresses the issue, "Surely any God worthy of the name would not only refuse to condone such brutality but would expend all of the divine effort necessary to bring the brutality to a halt, and initiate the work of passionate rebuilding."[14] The issue emerges forcibly in the book of Job, since God is incited "to destroy [Job] for no reason" (Job 2:3).

[edit] Forensic themesIn connection with the theodicean question, both The Trial of God and the book of Job place God on trial. Wiesel’s character Berish declares "I—Berish...accuse Him of hostility, cruelty, and indifference.... He is...He is...guilty! (Pause. Loud and clear) Yes, guilty!"[15] In a similar thematic vein of accusation, Job cries out, "I would lay my case before [God], and fill my mouth with arguments" (Job 23:4). The reason, of course, is that Job is a righteous person who fears God, yet God "multiplies [Job’s] wounds without cause" in a way Job can only describe as murderous (Job 9:17; 16:11-18).

[edit] Sam and Job's FriendsIn a provocative twist, Wiesel conflates Sam (i.e., the Devil) with Job’s friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar) from the Hebrew Bible. In the book of Job, the friends provide the voices of theodicy—namely, the ones insistent upon God’s justice despite the problem of suffering. In The Trial of God, Sam presents the very arguments the reader would expect from Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Compare, for example, Sam’s claim that suffering is "all because of our sins"[16] and Eliphaz’s musings in Job 4:7: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."

[edit] ProductionsThe Trial of God was premiered by Bucket Productions at the Bath House Cultural Center in Dallas, Texas on February 2, 2000.[17] It also premiered in New York for the first time on March 31, 2007 at the Makor Theatre and featured "traditional dancers from the Kalaniot Dance Troupe and Klezmer musicians from KlezMITron."[18]

[edit] ReferencesAll page references to The Trial of God refer to the 1995 Shocken Books paperback edition, translated by Marion Wiesel.
^ The Trial of God, p. 54
^ The Trial of God, p. xxv
^ The Trial of God, p. xxv
^ Fewell, Danna Nolan; Phillips, Gary Allen (2008). Representing the irreparable: the Shoah, the Bible, and the art of Samuel Bak. Pucker Art Publications. p. xiii. http://books.google.com/books?id=PMzqAA ... CEEQ6AEwAw. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Brown, Robert McAfee, in the Introduction to The Trial of God, p. vii
^ Hester, David C. (2005). Job. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 40–41. http://books.google.com/books?id=HkmaHa ... wn&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Brown, Robert McAfee, in the Introduction to The Trial of God, p. vii
^ René Camilleri (April 1, 2007). "The trial of God and ours". Times of Malta. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/vi ... ours.21608. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Thomas B. Harrison (April 15, 1987). "Wiesel drama seeks meaning in the tragedy". St. Petersburg Times. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/acc ... atl=google. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ The Trial of God, p. 91
^ a b Sternlicht, Sanford V. (2003). Student companion to Elie Wiesel. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 125. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bf-NNe ... ie&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ KPTM Fox 42 (2007-09-17). "Nebraska State Senator Sues God Over Natural Disasters". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
^ Horowitz, Rosemary (October 30, 2006). Elie Wiesel and the art of storytelling. McFarland & Company. p. 81. http://books.google.com/books?id=a5Mw60 ... ie&f=false. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ The Trial of God, viii
^ The Trial of God, p. 125
^ The Trial of God, p. 134
^ Lawson Taitte (February 3, 2000). "'The Trial of God' proves to be an ordeal for viewers". Dallas Morning News. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc ... l=GooglePM. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
^ Zachary Pincus-Roth (March 29, 2007). "Makor to Present NY Premiere of Elie Wiesel Play". Playbill. http://www.playbill.com/news/article/10 ... iesel-Play. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
[edit] Further readingThomas Pyne (May 20, 1979). "Elie Wiesel puts God in the docket (subscription required)". Los Angeles Times. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/acc ... atl=google. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =486763242"
Categories: 1979 plays1649 in fictionHidden categories: Articles lacking reliable references from August 2011All articles lacking reliable referencesArticles that may contain original research from January 2011All articles that may contain original researchArticles created via the Article Wizard
Personal toolsCreate account Log in NamespacesArticle Talk VariantsViewsRead Edit View history ActionsSearch NavigationMain page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia ShopInteractionHelp About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia ToolboxWhat links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionThis page was last modified on 11 April 2012 at 05:56.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view

[ultimate777]

Rather uncalled for.
There are many an atheistic or skeptical view and comment that disturbs me ( Harris comment on Rape VS religion is one for example) and yet, I try my best to be civil and understand that POV.
You may not LIKE an answer to your question, but that doesn't make the answer any less valid.

I seem to be the only one around here that ever admits I made a mistake. Does that mean I am the only one who makes mistakes?

I mistook that Paul had bragged on himself that that what he said was sufficient. Which I thought was incredible arrogance on his part than did not deserve any consideration.
I see now that I was wrong. That is, he did not brag on himself.

If one never fails one never tries.

Understood, no problem
Just an FYI, I may put forth a view that is an answer, but that doesn't mean that I myself may agree with it.


May I put forth the view that that confuses me