Quick, but thought-provoking read!

Almost everyone has, at some point, contemplated the infallibility of God (or at least every religious/pseudo-religious person). In the face of the many horrors that plague us, such as war, famine, and disease, it is natural to question how a loving and all-powerful God could allow such things to happen. Wiesel, in this work, puts some of that deep-seated questioning into words, and it makes for a great and powerful read. His words cut to the core of our beliefs and force us to confront the difficult questions that we often try to avoid. The Introduction and the Afterword add quite a lot to the experience of the reading. They provide context and background information that helps us to better understand Wiesel's message and the significance of his work. Overall, this is a book that will stay with you long after you have finished reading it.

I began reading this play with no clear anticipation, perhaps harboring some preconceived notions about the outcome of this trial. However, I was proven wrong. The writer has masterfully conveyed profound and significant metaphors within the scenes and between the lines.

What I found less appealing was that the preparatory scenes were overly lengthy, with numerous conversations that could have been more concise and impactful. The writer did manage to evoke a sense of pain at certain moments, but fell short in other aspects. This was attributed to the long speeches and the unnecessary sarcasm present in many places.

Nonetheless, this is a remarkable play that compels your mind to think and incites a rebellion against the fear of discussing our beliefs. It challenges our perspectives and forces us to confront the deeper meanings hidden within.

Overall, despite its flaws, this play has the power to engage and inspire, leaving a lasting impression on the reader.

A whole lot of talk about interpersonal relationships is presented in this work, yet it is told in an anachronistic form. Surprisingly, there is almost no mention of God.

When we consider that it is highly unlikely that 17th century Jewish peasants would have spoken in the ways described, it becomes evident that Wiesel's true intention was to write a book about the trial he witnessed during the Holocaust.

The BBC, interestingly, created a TV movie based on just one line in the foreword of this play. This adaptation turned out to be far more engaging and interesting than the original work.

Perhaps the TV movie was able to capture the essence and significance of that one line in a more powerful way, bringing to life the emotions and horrors of the Holocaust in a more vivid and impactful manner.

It makes one wonder what could have been if Wiesel had focused more on the actual events of the trial and less on the anachronistic interpersonal relationships.

Nonetheless, both the original work and the TV movie serve as important reminders of the atrocities of the Holocaust and the need to remember and learn from history.

One must possess the remarkable ability to think deeply in order to truly understand the profound essence of this book. It is not a simple read that can be grasped superficially. The ideas and concepts presented within its pages are so intricate and thought-provoking that only those who are willing to engage in deep reflection can fully appreciate its value. I, for one, absolutely adored this book. It took me on a journey of intellectual exploration, challenging my preconceived notions and expanding my perspective. Every page was filled with insights that made me stop and ponder. The author's writing style was engaging and captivating, drawing me in from the very beginning. I found myself completely immersed in the story, unable to put the book down. It was truly a remarkable reading experience that I will cherish for a long time.

A compelling drama unfolds where a Jewish man, having lost his entire family in a pogrom, dares to place God on trial for crimes against humanity. Set in 1649, it is evident that Wiesel's own experiences in the Holocaust serve as the inspiration. He openly admits that it is based on one of his Auschwitz experiences, when at 15, he witnessed three senior rabbis reluctantly put their God on trial and find Him guilty.

The play delves into numerous profound issues. Leaving aside theology for the moment, it still confronts some truly horrific matters. The characters indicting God have endured the anti-Semitic-motivated murder and gang rape of their loved ones, and the play's ending is deeply chilling. However, surprisingly, the play also has humorous moments, albeit in a cynical vein. For instance, on page 70, as the characters prepare for the mock trial: "But someone is missing." / "Who is that? The defendant? He's used to it."

Wiesel handles the weighty theological and philosophical arguments with remarkable even-handedness. He has no atheistic or religious agenda. If anything, his message, as affirmed by Robert McAfee Brown and Matthew Fox in their Introduction and Afterword respectively, is a humanist one. While a simplistic summary of the play might be: 'Why does God let bad things happen to good people?', a more nuanced summary, as identified by Brown and Fox, is that if we cannot obtain justice from God, we must ensure we strive for it ourselves. God's culpability perhaps cannot be excused, and 'The Trial of God' ends agreeably open-ended on this point. But if faith cannot console us in dark times, we must seek a more intelligent and independent response to the struggles and evils of our world. It is a mature and life-affirming message within a play about the bleakest of topics.

Elie Wiesel, at the tender age of 12 in Auschwitz, bore witness to a profound event. Three renowned Rabbis held a 'trial of God'. They found God guilty. Guilty for the heinous crimes committed against the Jews in the Holocaust. Guilty for permitting His chosen people to endure inhumane suffering. And guilty for allowing His creation to perpetrate such atrocities, sometimes even in His name.

I had previously delved into 'Night', which is an autobiographical account of his time in the camp, and 'Twilight', a novel about a post-Holocaust survivor. Elie is an outstanding writer who strips away the veneer and gets to the core of the real horrors.

The 'Trial of God' is presented as a play, set not during the Holocaust but during the pogroms, specifically on the holiday of Purim. It is a remarkable play that delves deep into the question of how God could allow such suffering, especially to His chosen people. It also explores how He could stand by and let people kill, rape, pillage, and destroy in His name. In many ways, it is more of a reflection on ourselves than just on God. The characters are not merely putting God on trial but also themselves. And at the end of the play, while the trial of God persists, the trial of Men comes to an end.

I feel that I am treading on holy ground when I approach the depth of suffering and horror that the Jewish people endured during the Holocaust. It is a topic that fills me with a sense of awe and humility. I have little right to express any thought on the matter at all; I would rather listen, listen to what they have to say and to teach us.

The U.S. school system does a good job of introducing young students to this important subject. I have read "Number the Stars" and "The Diary of Anne Frank," as well as a few others. These books have given me a glimpse into the lives of those who suffered during the Holocaust. I am glad that as a society, we are still engaging with it, still wrestling with it, and seeking out answers.

"The Trial of God" was written by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor. I put the book on my to-read list after encountering another book dealing with human suffering, "Re-Reading Job" by Michael Austin. "Trial" at its very center is the story of Job re-told in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish pogroms of the 12th and 13th centuries.

The book is very interesting, in that it is a story within a story. While Wiesel was in a concentration camp, some rabbis with whom he was acquainted held a mock trial of God. Wiesel wanted to write about this experience later, but it just wouldn't come out - as a memoir, an essay, a reflection. Instead, he chose to write it as a play set in 13th century Poland. It's a story within a story that keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end.

The two characters that clash in the third act are Berish, the prosecutor of God who has witnessed the rape, pillage, and murder of his people at the hands of Christians; and Sam, the defender of God whom no one seems to know who he is, but they all feel that he looks vaguely familiar. Sam makes many of the arguments for God in the face of suffering that seem superficial and do not comfort. We do not know God's ways, we can't see the bigger picture, can we really compare ourselves to God's suffering or the suffering of others, etc. These are the arguments that Job's comforters make in the book of Job as well. There is a twist at the end though, but I can't spoil it for you. Sam is mysterious for a reason.

I am impressed with how much Wiesel is able to pack into these characters in so little time. The three minstrels, the Christian woman Marie, the outraged Berish, his suffering daughter Hannah, and the cold Sam. It is a book that asks the tough questions, and perhaps challenges your faith. It isn't godless; but Berish demands justice from God when justice doesn't seem to be present. Men of faith too ask why there is such suffering in the world. There is no simple answer, and we should avoid giving them, because rather than comforting, we cause affliction.

The quotes from the text add depth and meaning to the story. They make you think about the nature of God, the meaning of suffering, and the role of faith in the face of evil. For example, the quote "That you are God’s whip, that is quite possible. But don’t be so proud of it. God is closer to the Just struck by the whip than to the whip." makes you think about the relationship between God and those who suffer.

The commentary also provides valuable insights into the book. It points out that consolation is no answer to the problem of suffering. Instead, we are called to take an active role in confronting evil and seeking justice. We are permitted to question God, to challenge God, to demand an accounting from God. And this, rather than diminishing God, is truly to take God seriously.

Overall, "The Trial of God" is a powerful and thought-provoking book. It challenges us to think about the nature of God, the meaning of suffering, and the role of faith in the face of evil. It is a book that I would highly recommend to anyone who is interested in these topics.

Man, this one really got me. I found myself just staring out the window, lost in deep thought, pondering the very essence of my existence. And yet, here I am, an atheist.

It's strange how certain things can trigger such intense bouts of self-reflection. Maybe it's the beauty of the outside world, or perhaps it's the quietness that allows my mind to wander.

As an atheist, I don't believe in a higher power or a divine plan. But that doesn't mean I don't question my place in this universe. I wonder what it all means, why we're here, and what our purpose is.

These thoughts can be both overwhelming and liberating. On one hand, they make me realize how small and insignificant I am in the grand scheme of things. But on the other hand, they also give me a sense of freedom to create my own meaning and purpose in life.

So, as I continue to stare out the window, I embrace these thoughts and let them guide me on my journey of self-discovery.

This play creates a wonderfully tense and fraught setting for a trial of god, carrying on the tradition and story of Job.

It starts very strongly with the introduction of the characters and the unusual, horrifying situation. The characters are interesting and well developed, which makes the beginning quite engaging.

However, the second act feels a bit padded. It seems to drag on a bit, which is a common issue in many plays. (The dreaded second act -- bane of all playwrights!)

The final act is a bit stronger, but the ending feels blindingly obvious. As an atheist, it was quite clear to me what was going to happen. I'm not sure if viewers are supposed to be surprised or shocked. Perhaps a believer would have a different reaction.

Despite my criticisms, the play is still gripping and often terrifying. It takes on the age-old question of why god lets bad things happen to good people, which is a very important and relevant issue.

There are many plays better than this, but I think its sober view of the world and its exploration of vital issues make it worthy of reading or viewing. It makes you think and reflects on the nature of good and evil, and the role of god in our lives.

Overall, it's a decent play that has its strengths and weaknesses, but it's definitely worth checking out if you're interested in exploring these themes.

A three-act theatrical work that can be read quickly. In the first two acts, not much happens. They are just a preparation for the third act, which is where the essence of the story lies. A group of actors and a Jewish tavern keeper stage a trial of God in a city where the Jewish community has been wiped out by a pogrom. The ending is rather disturbing.

This play seems to explore deep themes such as faith, justice, and the human condition. The slow build-up in the first two acts creates anticipation for the powerful events that unfold in the third act. The idea of staging a trial of God is both bold and thought-provoking. It makes the audience question their own beliefs and values.

The description of the pogrom and its aftermath adds a layer of historical and social context to the story. It shows the impact of such events on individuals and communities. The disturbing ending leaves a lasting impression on the reader, making them reflect on the tragedy and its implications.

This is a captivating play where the Jewish people, in 1649, put God on trial for remaining inactive while his people are being killed. As they prepare for the trial, they face the challenge of finding a prosecutor for God. At the end of Act 2, a mysterious “stranger” appears and volunteers to defend God.

In Act 3, we discover that the “stranger's name is Sam. And at the very conclusion, we learn the true identity of Sam and what he does in his spare time when he isn't defending God.

Throughout the trial, they engage in a passionate debate about the possibility of death being good and the fine distinction between death and suffering. Some come to the conclusion that God either doesn't care or is somehow ignoring them, thus making God guilty.

Taking a slight detour from the specific details of this play, it reminds me of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. In this novel, a man named Ivan decides to reject God for allowing evil. He even goes so far as to say that “he is returning his ticket to heaven.” He cannot fathom spending an eternity with a being who permits the suffering and death of children. Thanks to Crash Course Philosophy (specifically episode 13) for this interesting connection.

Anyway, it's important to remember that this is a play and not a novel as you read. There is a greater emphasis on dialogue and less on description. Although I'm not a regular reader of plays, I found this one quite enjoyable.

The starting idea of the book is brilliant: to put God on trial.

The first two acts slowly but surely set up the trial, gradually instilling in us the charges as we read. We are impatient to get to the heart of the matter while reading, and this is very successful.

However, I am disappointed by the third part on several points. The portraits of the two female characters are at best insignificant and at worst rather misogynistic, even with the necessary hindsight on the era in which the play was written. The character of Sam seems like an easy way out in the narration to avoid the expected trial.

Nevertheless, it remains an interesting read, very conducive to reflection, especially on what could have made it a very, very good book.