interesting…more please?

I’m afraid that I only know as much as can be gathered from a google search. The rest I know wanders into spoiler territory, so if you intend to read it eventually, finding a synopsis might not be such a great idea.

Also, I think that if I delved into it deeper, I’d only find more differences between Peter Rollins’ point and Elie Wiesel’s point, not more parallels. Really, what initially reminded me of The Trial of God was the way the rabbis flatly rejected God’s will. They favored more of a two-way relationship with God, as opposed to a submission to God’s whims.

One difference (and I am only elaborating on this because I feel it is relevant to the main topic), is that Peter Rollins emphasizes the friendship between the rabbis. They share ritual together, they share time together. Even if they are disagreeing, they are disagreeing together. The Trial of God, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the importance of confronting evil, without trying to rationalize it away.

I’d say that “wrestling” with scripture–or more secularly speaking, wrestling with the great question(s) of life, the universe, and everything–is beneficial for both reasons. First, because it is a social activity. Second, because we should care deeply about these issues.

Of course, I disagree with him on this point… Being without god does not imply indifference.

interesting…more please?

nice summary miller, thanks.

See, one of the idea behind Elie Wiesel’s book is that it doesn’t matter so much what we conclude about god. What matters is that we wrestle with these big ideas. What matters is that we confront the problem of evil rather than ignore it.

To quote Elie Wiesel,

For a Jew to believe in God is good. For a Jew to protest against God is still good. But simply to ignore God–that is not good. Anger, yes. Protest, yes. Affirmation, yes. But indifference? No. You can be a Jew with God. You can be a Jew against God. But not without God.

Of course, I disagree with him on this point… Being without god does not imply indifference.

But do the parallels seem clear now?

Trial of God! yes yes yes! Had that book in my shelf for so long: seems stunning upon perusal. Never got stuck into it though…

In any case… why I said “I don’t think so”: Peter attributes the parable he shares as “an ancient Jewish parable”, in which case we’re talking here about “basic principles” behind how Rabbi’s approach the Hebrew Bible, aka the Old Testament. So we’re talking about the faiths’ heritage. Which is then very, very much at odds with fundamentalism’s approach to the Bible, and if this is genuine heritage from the tradition that wrote the Old Testament, how can fundies claim to have “the one, the true, the correct interpretation”?

Grrr, I don’t want to turn this thread into a debate though. More a case of “so what do you get out of this parable?”

Parables are nice teaching tools, and they’re quite humble, in the sense that they’re told, they’re left, the crowd is left to wonder. Jesus often explained parables to his disciples because even they didn’t get them… hmmm… but he didn’t explain them to the crowds! So Peter tells a parable, to have us think about a certain… what I’d call “truth” about the scripture and the tradition, but the rest is left in the listener’s hands.

Debate can be side-stepped/avoided by “hey, it’s just a parable!” Those that are champing at the bit for debate are typically anyway not open to learning what the parable is teaching. My commentary here might be spoiling that dynamic a bit.

It’s based on a supposedly true event which Elie Wiesel witnessed while in Aushwitz: three scholars held a trial, finding God to be guilty of crimes against humanity. After the verdict, they all pray.

I think there are very similar ideas going on between Elie Wiesel and Peter Rollins.