life, touch, on, on, on. I ask you what word did you, this instant of life, strive for? This word, this thought to encircle all that! At that time of the word, man was created. Only less than a god, because he did not know the word. And so remained man. But do not lessen that word and just call it God, because it is larger than even God. Because the word created God too.
Did man create God? Yes, but a small one much less than himself even. There may exist a much larger God but only much larger men will know him. Giant men who understand the word and speak it gratefully around their own soul's of fire. Men who would welcome a Father but can climb on without him. Mean who know even God's fail but do not condemn his creations for it.
So, your Honour, I envision men as men not creating gods or thinking gods or beseeching gods but as brothers who would welcome a lost Father. They are not beggars to his absence, or lawyers to his path, or judges to his acts. They do not chastise each other in his leavings but embrace each other in his likeness. In their own likeness. They will not let the name of the Father hold their stature. For a son is a son, a brother is a brother, whether the Father comes or not but sadly a Father is known only in the presence of his sons.
Where the Father stays lost to his sons, who can any longer call him a father?
But within their own eyes, within the window of a mirror, cannot each man seize the vision of the God that lies dormant; huge in his potential.
Veiled just lightly behind the Word. A majesty, a depth unheard of. The journey to; not away; not around. Here is a Father waiting a son's tear of embrace. Here is creation on the threshold of unfolding. Here is a God-man;
let no whispers of defile or faint heart drive them asunder!
For those who have courage to hold the vision of Man, here is your religion, look to the glass and begin to paint your destiny.
For those who have depth to a heart of God, here is your religion, behold both and do unto man as thou would do onto God.
For those of no courage; of no heart, come to the mirror and see why the others minister greatly onto you. For the sake of a brotherhood of Man and the beg of a Father.
And for all, does not the man create his God at the mirror, that is neither the god is in the mirror or the man exists before the mirror till the mirror and the man are joined in vision. At that instant of time both man and god are created by the man and by the mirror. But what is a mirror but simply the means, simply the tool to see oneself; to see inside oneself's eyes.
Is not then the god and the man, the insides and outsides of the man? And thereby the more of man, the more of God?
We cannot make much of the god by belittling the man. For small creations mean meagre Creators. Absurd to use the name of a Creator to degrade the creations. If a God does exist he would call that the only Blasphemy; the only SIN.
The movement to the mirror becomes the time of creation; the push from dark to light; the soul's fire; the saying of the word. The dipping of the cup. The likeness seen is what is created. No man can create more than he is and alas, no man can be more than he can envision.
I dream of a time to come when men must shield their eyes from their own brilliance. Before their mirror of their own God.
Judge: Yes, yes, we, ah, understand your points, young man. Please continue with your questioning.
Beggar: Thank you, your Honour. If the Prosecution doesn't mind, we shall now move on to the question of fraud. As much of the ground work has already been trod upon when we explored the natural path of man to God, it should not be quite so tedious.
Prosecution: As you promise no likeness to a very scenic but arduous climb, I'll travel a little further, but I warn you my ears may tarry behind.
Beggar: Let us be merciful to them and be quick with our thrusts. I spoke earlier that the fraud of the case was that the mirror or rather the image within the mirror and the mirror itself was not a god. Would you agree this is the explicitness of the case?
Prosecution: It is close enough.
Beggar: Then would you agree that to prove myself not guilty, I must merely prove the mirror and the image to be a god.
Prosecution: As merely is a very large understatement I would hasten to agree with this trap you've sprung about yourself.
Beggar: Ah, but a man's trap can be his net, holding him from much more peril ahead. I would rather have you agree on the validity of the statement, not the abyss behind it. For a huge stone does not necessarily make a pretty statue.
Prosecution: Very well the. I agree solely on the basis of its truth, having no regard for your peril should it topple. Chip away, young fellow, chip away.
Beggar: For brevity, could we name some of the characteristics of a god as creation, eternal, omni-powerful or at least next to it? Following the assumption gods exist beyond man as now accepted by civilization.
Prosecution: Yes, those are some. If not all.
Beggar: Could I name another that can be that of great men and can be exempt in some gods but is found in the majority of gods?
Prosecution: Name it and we will then judge its acceptance.
Beggar: Call it then historation, a poor word I know but coined to mean: capable of altering human history. By principal do you agree that most gods are capable and in fact do this? Whether they are beseeched to do such by prayers or through their own inclinations.
Prosecution: As the two reasons, man seeks a god one being eternity; the other alteration in his own life, I cannot argue that man does not wish it is so. I can argue however that a wish is not a reality. The acts of gods are continually intermixed with fate and coincidence. There is no solid proof that a god will or can intercede.
Beggar: Let us leave 'will' for a moment and proceed with 'can'. Would you agree that great men can change the flow of history?
Prosecution: Absolutely. Here we may measure the effects of tyrants, scholars, warriors with an exactness hundreds of years later.
Beggar: Are gods more powerful than great men?
Prosecution: Yes I would say and I see where you lead to. That a greater thing is obviously more capable of altering the path of a moving object than a lesser thing.
But can we not argue that things small enough to be a part of within a history are more likely to alter it by their own change of movement than a greater thing outside the history? The greater thing being hampered by its inability to adjust the delicate parts due to the hugeness of its power.
Beggar: I might agree on that if we were to place a lower limit to the power of a god. That is to say, would you argue that a god cannot shrink or issue the level of its power to that of a man or even less than a man?
Prosecution: Can a dog see the world of a flea?
Beggar: Quite right sir but cannot the god become the man? Can he not shrink to his size and thereby see his world?
Prosecution: He can shrink to his size but he cannot truly see a man's world.
Beggar: Why is that?
Prosecution: Because he is not a man, he is still a god. There is a large difference between a cage with a door open then with the door closed. The god will not truly see the world as a man as he cannot know the futility, the dimness of being human without knowledge of god. He will not know the desperation of life vs. death. He will not experience endless and driving temptation since only his body desires, his spirit is inert. All temptation for a god is only half what it is to a man since a man lusts for immortality by the spirit too but most times misguided through the desires of the body. And other things: Would a god know guilt? Fear? Hate? Love, even as a man. Love as man to man despite all these walls. The ultimate love of a man dying in war to save his comrades, folly though those conflicts be. Would we call it noble for a god to pretend to die out of love when all along he knew he could not. For no matter what the act or thought that a god may do in a man's world, he will never act or think as a man will.
Beggar: Yet did we not say a god is all knowing?
Prosecution: Yes, he is but the god only knows that which already exists. When the ma
n creates a thought of his own anguish or desperation, then the god knows the anguish or desperation exists. The god does not however know anguish or desperation, he only knows of it. As if when a man and a dog are hungry and come to a table laden with food. Both know hunger and both know of the other's hunger. The man will not however comprehend the trust and desperation of the dog waiting for a scrap to be thrown to it as the man feasts for his own hunger.
Beggar: But surely if both the dog and the man came to a rich man's door to beg then the man would know the dog's desperation, hope and trust?
Prosecution: I agree. The question is now however, if the dog is a man and the man is a god what do gods beg for?
Beggar: The god begs for its own life.
Prosecution: What! Did we not agree to their immortality? And who is above a god to kill the god?
Beggar: No above, sir but with. Man is with his god or gods in this deadly grip of immortality propelled by creation. The man and the god maintain the existence of each other through creation as we have described before. Hence the god is a beggar to the man, for he cannot exist without him. No can the man exist alone. Forget the sense of a beggar and his mongrel. Think of them as hunters. The hunter and his dog. Which knows the purpose, the calling, the desire? Which better knows the scent, the trail, the darkness. The hunter as god; the dog as man. The hunter does not see as a dog but he comprehends. He sees through the eyes of the dog. The dog's