What was the appearance of the three [LORD,lords] who visited Abraham.

[7djengo7]

So, for you to say

I can see His works in and around my life with my physical eyes.

is for you to say

I can see God

(and vice versa)?

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

 

[7djengo7]

Observe this irrelevant thing you wrote:

I am seeing God's handiwork

You'd have actually had something to gripe about, had I only quoted this much of it:

I am seeing God

and left off this bit of it:

's handiwork

But I didn't do that.

Beyond the superficial commonality in the bare fact of my use of excerption, what I did do is not like that, and you have no right to complain about what I did do. What I did do is I excerpted this portion of your words:

I can see God

from a little larger portion of your words:

I can see God by the works that He does.

Contrary to your griping, nothing is wrong with my having done that.

Your griping about it is akin in its asininity to, if you had written

I went to the liquor store by a different route than I usually take.

and I had quoted just this much of what you wrote

I went to the liquor store

your griping about my having so quoted.

But, had you also written:

I've never gone to the liquor store.

and I juxtaposed that to your other words:

I went to the liquor store

how ridiculous it would be for you to imagine it could be somehow helpful to you to complain about my having not included your words "by a different route than I usually take" in my excerpt! Think how dumb it would sound for you to trot out the "context matters" slogans! Yet, it's the same situation with your whining about my having excerpted and juxtaposed together your two passages as I did:

I can see God

I cannot see God

The fact that you had added your words "by the works that He does" after your words "I can see God" does not make disappear the fact that you wrote both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God".

 

[oatmeal]

So, for you to say

is for you to say

(and vice versa)?

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

That is right, God's works are not God.

 

[7djengo7]

That is right, God's works are not God.

Then answer the question I asked you, weasel:

Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"?

Remember what you said to me, hypocrite:

Did you read all of what I posted.

No, obviously, you did not.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, taking that to be you advertising that it is your policy to read all of what your critic/questioner has posted, pursuant to "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." So, I know you read that question to you that I posted:

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

Please explain your failure to answer that question that you have read.