Why Attraction is NOT Divine Intervention (part 1)

True story: Sally’s car breaks down on the way to a job interview.  Instead of rescheduling the interview, Sally cancels, taking it as a sign from her angels that she was not meant to take this job.

Depending on your spiritual beliefs and education background you will either find that to be (a) inspirational and intuitive; (b) an example of the Law of Attraction; or (c) tragic. I vote for (c), tragic. She might have missed out on her dream job because of this.

Sure it COULD have been divine intervention, but it’s much more likely to be either a coincidence, or if you don’t believe in them, then it was her unconscious fear of success sabotaging her interview.  It’s MUCH more likely to be her fear of how amazing the job would be, rather than a sign that she shouldn’t apply for it. Yet people, especially “New Agers” make these type of decisions every single day, often with life-changing consequences.

Every day people tell me stories which seem incredibly meaningful to them, but which in reality confuse fear, gut instinct or coincidence with magical intervention.

Today I hope to do some real service to the New Age community by clearing up the misconception between Divine Intervention and the Law of Attraction (LOA).

To set the scene, here are more true examples:

  • John tried to pay for a course online but there was a failure with the PayPal button and he couldn’t pay for several days. John takes it as a sign from Above that he is not meant to do this course; [We get this a lot – mainly thanks to PayPal being so error prone! Then again PayPal saved us from an earthquake in Japan right?]
  • Martin applied to get into Dentistry in a year that the South African universities implemented a black empowerment program.  He was not accepted (but would have been in any other year).  He took this as divine intervention that God didn’t want him to be a dentist.  He became an engineer and remains miserable to this day. [If it was Divine Intervention then he was divinely screwed over.]
  • On her wedding day, Jane is delighted to see beautiful clear skies, perfect weather.  She has prayed for this as a sign that the marriage will be favored and that they will be blessed with many children;
  • Sue was taking a spiritual healing course and just as the teacher was saying something really important the sun broke through the clouds and lit up precisely where the teacher was standing. This was clearly an act of divine intervention meaning the teacher was speaking a higher Truth;
  • Sandra has an appointment with a practitioner to work on clearing trauma.  Due to a mis-communication about times she misses the appointment.  Sue takes this as a sign that she shouldn’t work with this practitioner (or modality).
  • Chris’ grandmother recalls how a lava flow destroyed many houses but was diverted before it destroyed her Catholic Church. It’s a miracle!  What bugged us about this version of it was that the priest declaring the miracle conveniently forgot all the houses that were destroyed and people who died.  If “My God” was going to intervene it would be to spare a child, not a building.

What all these stories have in common is called “magical thinking.”  People (often those who should know better) confuse correlation (things happening at the same time) with causation (things happening for a reason).

Another way to put it is to say that there is a general New Age misconception that basically says “I can’t explain how this happened, therefore it must be the work of a Greater Being.”

In philosophy we call this an Argument From Ignorance and I’ll be writing more about this subject soon.

A classic example of this on my blog a few weeks ago was a comment from reader Kim in relation to Divine Intervention. She said:

My husband also has beliefs very close to mine–I’m not sure I could have found him on my own, and I’m not sure I did.  …

Of course, I tried not to choose my husband–but I was over-ruled. I have also been hit by debilitating physical symptoms … when I wanted to do something that was deemed in some way dangerous or inadvisable to me by my guides. As soon as my window of opportunity closed, the pain evaporated. I would call that intervention.

I would call this the “classic New Age” view.  Kim thinks that she couldn’t have manifested her husband on her own; there must have been help.   She also thinks that it’s her guides giving her gut instincts (pain relating to decisions) rather than just her own body mind/gut.  (I wrote an article about gut instincts recently – “Are Gut Feelings Misleading”?

But what do you think?  Is there a divine helping hand upstairs guiding Kim towards the right husband and the right decisions, or is it just Kim, attracting and manifesting and listening to her gut, as we all do all day long?

Tomorrow I will continue with my thoughts about Divine Intervention and I’ll propose a test that you can use to discern the difference between Divine Intervention and LOA.

For now over to you – what do you think?

Do you have any examples of magical thinking in divine intervention that would complement the list above? If so please share them here!

Blessings of non-divine intervention,


(Click here to continue to Part 2 – but don’t forget to leave a comment below.)

April 7, 2011 in Law of Attraction, Spiritual ideas and theory
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

18 Responses

  1. Just to clear something up, there’s an enormously wide spectrum of beliefs that can fit under the broad label of “new age”. The problem I have with the label “new age” is that it all tends to lump the entire spectrum of “new age” beliefs into the type of examples you gave and yet those interpretations of events are diametrically opposed to my beliefs. In fact the Abraham-Hicks material (of which I’m a big fan) would probably be labelled classic new age but their teachings are the complete opposite of the people in your examples. Whist their teachings describe LOA in terms of non-physical energy and the interaction between the physical and non-physical, their teachings also emphasize personal power and responsibility and that there is no assertion from outside yourself.

    I agree that the examples you gave are fairly common in the new age community as people like to read meaning into things and sometimes go too far. However, as you pointed out, that’s quite different from LOA. In fact, it’s the complete opposite of LOA! There are times when you look back at something you thought was bad at the time but it turned out to be exactly what was necessary in order get to your present point. There’s always going to be a path from point A to point B and things will happen along that path that, at the time, may not make sense but make sense in hindsight. Trying to interpret the things along the way as divine signs misses the whole point and may actually throw you off the path. Instead of asking “I wonder I’ve got going on inside that attracted this” or “how can I take advantage of this unexpected situation” you become resigned to fate and abdicate your power to “the gods” or “the angels”. That belief implies that something outside yourself has asserted something into your experience but LOA says the opposite – it’s your personal vibration that attracted those things into your experience.

    In my opinion a belief in LOA isn’t compatible in a belief in assertion from a divine source. Furthermore, a belief in assertion from a divine source is actually a very disempowering belief to hold and just the new age equivalent of victim mentality.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Hi Shane
    I agree.
    I’ve always been quite anti-New Age but I have also known that many others would regard my fairly level-headed beliefs in Beingness and healing as New Age.

    It is a poor description at best since there is no unifying theme or ideology for New Age-ism.

    Nevertheless, I am choosing on this blog to analyze and deconstruct several common New Age fallacies. It is not my intent to “destroy” or even “attack” the New Age movement. I prefer the idea of reforming it from within!

    Incidentally, whilst I share your enthusiasm for Abraham-Hicks, it leaves me feeling a little odd because channeling a group consciousness energy separate to one’s own Beingness is outside of my spiritual comfort zone. I’m agnostic on that issue. Still the material is great and I just choose to interpret it as Hick’s not Abraham’s.



    Shane Marsh Reply:

    That’s fair enough. In fact there are even a lot of people who get in the “hotseat” to ask a question that have difficulty with the concept of “Abraham” and prefer to address her as Esther. I still sometimes have difficulty with the phenomenon of channeling so I share your agnosticism to a degree. Having said that, I’ve been listening to “them” now for about 12 years (as well as going back over some of the previous recordings) and I’ve picked a quite a bit that isn’t readily apparent from a casual listening or reading.

    “They’ve” said on many occasions that they’ve described themselves as beings or group consciousness called “Abraham” more as a metaphor than reality as it’s difficult to describe what “they” actually are in a way that those physically focused can understand. So they use a lot of metaphors and analogies to aid in understanding the concepts they teach. However, they’re not actually “beings” or “entities” that somehow take over Esther’s body and speak through her. Rather, they’re the aspect of “source energy” that Esther’s able to tune into and that particular aspect of source energy has come forth through Esther because of the questions being asked. Blocks of thought or ideas are offered which Esther then translates into the physical word equivalent at an unconscious level. However, there’s no separation and there’s just one source energy of which we’re all a part. One of the aspects of their teaching is that there’s no separation but just difference of focus. What appears to be our physical separate selves is just the part of our broader consciousness that’s focused on the physical. However, from a broader perspective, we’re actually simultaneously physical and non-physical.

    It’s difficult to describe but the overriding impression I get is a message of oneness rather than duality. One person in the hotseat said “so I’m essentially talking to myself then?” and the answer was “yes” although “Abraham” is a broader aspect of the same source energy that he and everyone (and everything) is. I guess the best way to describe it is the one consciousness multitasking so it creates the illusion of separation but it’s an illusion and everyone has access to the same consciousness because we are that same consciousness.

    Anyway, that’s slightly off topic and I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about the Abraham-Hicks material. At the end of the day, it’s the material that counts, not the source of it and your view is perfectly valid.


  2. I tend to be one of those people who always look too much into those kinds of “signs”. i basically think everything is a sign. Which is exactly why i never rely on them. Cuz you can make a sign out of ANYTHING. especially if you want it to be…whether consciously or subconsciously. And also…i feel the same about gut feelings. When i have a gut feeling about something I’ve always just assumed that it was just fear or other negative emotion. I guess what i rely on most is dreams and pictures i see in my mind. Which has most of the time turned out to be reliable. But even then….never SURE. Simon…what do you think is the most reliable source of information? is there any intuitive info that we can really trust. I think even when i get intuitive readings from someone…its never the whole truth. I don’t doubt that many readers do get true intuitive info. But its often limited by the persons own perceptions or sometimes they are merely picking up on your thought forms…and not necessarily the truth. So what can we trust really. For me…I’ve learned while not hundred percent…my dreams have been best.


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Dear Aya, you show great wisdom and insight.

    You are right, everything is a sign, and when everything is a sign, then all signs are misleading.
    Part of the problem is that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. There’s nothing to really measure good and bad signs by (there is no fixed moral absolute). But that’s a more philosophical than we need be today.

    My advice, and what I’m building up towards on this blog, is that true intuition is INTERNAL, whereas “new age intuition” (to make up a term) is external.

    When someone listens to their gut, identifies the fear, processes it and learns from it, they have internalized their learning. When someone believes their angels made them feel sick in the gut as a way of pushing them in the right direction (see Kim’s comment), they have externalized the learning, projected what could be great wisdom into the magical world of the invisible. This is not to say that angels don’t exist, merely that that’s not how they work.

    Similarly with so-called higher intuition. Claircognizance is huger knowing, just knowing something to be true without any rational reason why. I have always been highly claircognizant and it used to cause me a lot of mental anguish because of the conflict between my intuition and my rational mind. Only with learning the techniques that became RPT did I know how to unite these minds (spirit mind and brain mind) so that there is no conflict. The key here – this is important – is that claircognizance comes from WITHIN. It is YOUR spiritual self guiding you.

    This is very different to the clairaudience which is commonly described in New Age circles as hearing the advice of guides or even “Creator.” This is the opposite – EXTERNALIZING your spiritual self. When people try to “hear” rather than “know” their higher guidance, they are placing the power out of their Beingness and into their invisible friends. That is why you will get conflicting information. I learned this when I first learned angel readings about 9 years ago. I discovered a vital rule: “2 angels, 3 opinions” meaning that every “being” you speak to has its own mind and opinion about what you should do. How can you ever get the right answer? You can’t. I no longer do angel readings, and whilst I have broad spiritual beliefs, I try to remain very grounded and focused.

    This was a build up to answering your question about dreams. Dreams come from within, not outside. That is why you said that dreams were your best source of information. You can improve on the quality of the information by continuing to internalize the process and clear yourself.

    The key here is clarity. For instance I think that “gut feelings” can be the best source of information but, like I wrote about in a recent article, when most people listen to a gut feeling it’s just fear of success/failure because they are not clear yet. They haven’t done the work to be vessel for their won truth.

    When people really commit to personal development work they peel away the layers and become clearer and clearer within themselves. For a while they start to “see” and “hear” their truth (clairvoyance and clairaudience) but these drop away as they accelerate their growth. When you are really clear you just “know” the truth. It comes through a clear gut (body) knowingness and through the mind / brain.

    It’s hard to describe, and for sure I have a way to go to be clear myself, but it’s a very different type of knowing that I have now. So to me the only true source of information is within yourself, and only AFTER you’ve checked that it’s not clouded by fear, doubt, attachment, etc.

    Please remember, there is nothing wrong with any form of intuition you use so long as you are sure to check yourself for where your truth comes from. Don’t be like my friend Leigh’s ex-wife who walks around saying “my guides tell me that you have done X/Y/Z” when all these things are projections of her fears and insecurities, none of them are true (I had first hand knowledge of the facts and tried to prove it – big mistake – it was me or the guides, I “lost”!].

    Hope this has been helpful, thanks for the excellent question.


    PS If I’ve lost anyone with the talk of clairaudience, claircognizance etc and the “hierarchy” of which is more true, don’t worry about it. It’s a complicated topic and one that I am researching and will be writing about later in the year.


    Aya kim Reply:

    Sorry I know this is an old topic and not sure if completely related, although somewhat…….
    I just had a reading from a psychic. She said that one of my lessons I will have to learn is that it’s better to be with a man who you are not as much attracted to than someone who I am very attracted to. She is a good reader. But this really bothered me so much. Because I always had this fear that this is a “lesson” since I seemed to always get into those situations. But is that really the truth? Or is that my trauma patterns or one of my minds saying that it’s smart to be with someone who I am less attracted to.

    What do you think about this Simon? I’m really curious to know. What I mean is, what do you think about the common ‘new age belief’ of lessons such as these? Or what do you think of ‘divine purpose’. Do we plan our lives and our lessons before we incarnate into this lifetime? I mean I’m sure you have heard these concepts many times in the new age community before. Are lessons real? So in what the psychic told me, that the lesson or “truth” is that it’s better to be with someone who is really good to me but I am not as attracted to, than someone I am really attracted to and is not so good to me? What I mean to say is…could it be my trauma that is saying that guys who are good to you are less attractive and guys who are not so good to you very attractive? I hope I made it understandable.

    What about for example, someone who was a drug addict and chose to go through that experience before incarnating, in order to help drug addicts in the future because that was his purpose? So then what happens when you clear with RPT his drug addiction? What about his purpose?

    What is your take on these?


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hi Aya
    This issue of psychics is a controversial one. I probably disagree with psychics on most thins, but let me start with something that I and all GOOD psychics agree on:

    A psychic can help you to see opportunities and threats. A good psychic tells you this in a way that EXPANDS your horizons and possibilities, never limits them.

    Though I’m very intuitive I tend to be against psychic reasons because there are just so many bad psychic readers -often the most intuitive have no “brains” or personal skills and do a lot of harm. I have spent a lot of time as a therapist fixing the harm done by bad psychics. For instance the time a psychic told a friend of mine that she was going to die of a heart attack by age 40. Sure she had some heart trauma and also perhaps physical issues, but these were easy to heal. The psychic was only seeing POSSIBILITIES but communicated them as inevitable. (To be fair most psychics aren’t this bad, I was just picking an extreme example.)

    To your question: Obviously the psychic picked up on trauma and a life lesson.

    A GOOD or responsible psychic would also tell you that you can clear trauma and change life lessons. This is very easy with RPT (clearing trauma on first day of Level 1 course; changing life lessons / soul purpose on Level 2).

    All this psychic did is pick up on your past relationship pattern. What you have done is extrapolate this past into the future. That’s tragic.

    I suggest that you use the tools available to you to identify WHY you have this relationship pattern. [If you see a RPT practitioner you will no doubt work on trauma in the womb and our associations for security, which is what drives our relationship attractions.]

    As soon as you clear the trauma you will see a huge change in who you are attracted to and who is attracted to you. I doubt you need to change your life/soul purpose because that part of the reading sounds like rubbish to me, just New Age gibberish. That’s because life / soul journeys are about BEING not DOING, so the example you gave makes no sense as a soul purpose.

    Re the drug addict, they probably have a purpose about being a victim and an opportunity to clear this trauma/karma for their family line. Also lessons here about responsibility.

    Hope this helps.


    Aya kim Reply:

    Yes you answered exactly what I was wondering, which was basically, would something being a “lesson” or purpose interfere with being able to clear an issue.
    But we can change those too! Great~

    Which is exactly why I made an appointment for a session already!

    Thanks Simon!

  3. Thanks for bringing up the topic Simon. I agree. Magical thinking is dead on.

    I missed my plane and it crashed;
    If I had gotten that job I never would have met my partner;
    I had a meeting postponed in the twin towers and then they went down;

    Must be divine intervention right?

    Wrong. The problem with this is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE. It lends itself to a situation where justification is all that matters.
    What about all the events that we wish didn’t happen. For example, many years ago I was hit by a truck that came roaring down the footpath. The truck was out of control and I turned at the very last minute to see the headlight. I dived backwards and my momentum in the correct direction helped me. The truck hit me and basically flicked me violently through a shop window. Many people in the truck were killed with some being paralyzed while I walked away amazingly with just some bruises to an amazed crowd of pedestrians. I was told that there was divine intervention here and that God clearly had a reason for me to be alive. A miracle right?
    What kind of an incompetent God can manage to “save” me from a truck hurtling out of control yet couldn’t delay my being in that particular spot at that particular time. Shit if the guy is that bad on timing he deserves to be fired. Lets just face the facts. There is no God anymore than their is a flying spaghetti monster.

    As such there is no such thing as divine intervention. There are simply events and we can choose to either deal with them as they are (which is simply factual happenings) or we can attribute some nonsense theories to them. The nonsense theories make people feel special and desired and important but they’re completely fallacious.



  4. Chris, thanks for being our Resident Atheist

    It’s good to have your perspective. I do have to make some slight distinctions where our points of view differ.

    Thanks for sharing your truck “miracle.” I had a similar experience, having walked away from 2 car accidents that really ought to have been fatal (based on the damage to the car for one thing). I think that there is a spectrum of beliefs on how to interpret these things, and you and I differ, yet we are both on the same side of the spectrum compared to say “classic New Age” mythology.

    The spectrum may look like this:

    1) Christian view: “Chris, God intervened to save your life. That means you are here for a reason, you must find that purpose and devote your life to service of God.”

    2) New Age: “You could have died Chris but your soul CHOSE to live. You experienced a death door and chose to stay. That means you are here for a reason, you must find that purpose and devote your life to your life purpose.”

    3) Simon Says: “Shit happens. Life just IS. Things seem random though usually we attract them on some level. This could be what’s called a “wake up call,” which is an experience your unconscious mind /body manifests to get a message through to conscious self. There’s no inherent reason why the accident happened, you have no purpose EXCEPT THAT WHICH YOU CHOOSE. So go ahead, pick a purpose and make your life meaningful. A meaningful life is the height of human spiritual achievement.

    4) Chris: There is nothing, there’s no proof of anything. All this spiritual stuff is woo-woo to take advantage of the gullible masses. There’s no purpose or meaning in anything.

    The key thing here – which I think the New Age gets right (at least the Neale Donald Walsch brand of New Age, perhaps not the Doreen Virtue brand), is that it’s up to YOU. There is no upstairs deciding whether you live or die, it’s YOU.

    I said I disagreed with something Chris wrote, it’s this:
    > Lets just face the facts. There is no God any more
    > than their is a flying spaghetti monster.

    How Dare You Insult The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are You Blind To His Truth? May You Be Slain By His Noodly Appendages!

    Seriously, the problem with atheists is that you confuse “not falsifiable” with “doesn’t exists.” You successfully disprove creation theory, divine intervention, prayer healing, etc, and then make the logical mistake of saying “therefore God doesn’t exist.” Bullshit!

    The whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) is that you cannot prove that there isn’t one. FSM is no less real than Jehovah or for that matter Santa Claus. That’s why FSM is my God, because you cannot disprove any of my beliefs.

    And that’s my point, things are real when people believe in them, and cease to be real when they don’t. God exists and is real. You cannot have 2 billion (or maybe 5 billion?) people believing in an idea without it being very real. I believe in God because I think you have to be blind and crazy to not believe that the group consciousness of 2-5 billion people is enough to support the existence of a that consciousness.

    More than anything else I BELIEVE IN CONSCIOUSNESS.

    But I don’t believe in the “Creator of All That Is” because that’s just crazy talk. Who created the Creator? The whole idea defies logic and common sense (read Dawkin’s God Delusion for an excellent philosophical analysis of this point). Before humans evolved big brains that had the capacity for belief, there was self-evidently no God. But there is one now whether atheists like it or not!

    You don’t believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Where’s your proof? Be my guest and disprove the non-falsifiable!

    You atheists… always so quick to judge! :-)


    PS for any sacrilege and blasphemy I have committed, please send the mujaheddin to Chris and not me, he started it! :-)


    Shane Marsh Reply:

    >Seriously, the problem with atheists is that you confuse “not falsifiable” with “doesn’t exists.” You successfully disprove creation theory, divine intervention, prayer healing, etc, and then make the logical mistake of saying “therefore God doesn’t exist.” Bullshit!
    I’m glad you said that (not in relation to Chris but as a general statement) because that’s probably the biggest hole most atheists fall into with their arguments about the existence or non-existence of God/fairies/invisible friends etc. Just as correlation doesn’t equate to causation, absence of proof doesn’t equate to proof of absence. As much as I love science, it’s fatally flawed when trying to study “invisible things” because science is built on a foundation of “objectively measurable things” and, by definition, invisible things are not objectively measurable so it becomes a circular argument. It should come as no surprise that science has failed to prove the existence of many invisible things as it’s asking the impossible of science.

    Does that mean science is bad or has nothing to contribute? No, of course not! It does extremely well within its limits but questions about the existence of invisible things are outside its jurisdiction. In law, if a court or tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction it’s automatic grounds for appeal. The problem with most atheistic arguments is that they use science to justify their position. There are certainly some atheistic arguments that science can assist with. An example is a controlled study examining the impact of prayer on recovery from illness – the act of prayer and the percentage of patients who recover compared to a control group are measurable. However, for the most part, any debate about the existence of invisible things is the domain of philosophy, not science. Science doesn’t have the capacity to definitively comment on such things and so it comes down to personal preference as to what evidence is satisfactory to the individual to justify a belief or non-belief in invisible things.

    For all we know, we’re all in the matrix dreaming this. To use a scientific expression, as ridiculous as it sounds, there’s a non-zero probability that we’re all currently in the matrix dreaming this. There’s certainly an extremely low probability that we’re all in the matrix plugged into some sort of dream machine but it’s non-zero which means it can’t definitely be ruled out. Strange but true!

    As Rene Descartes noted, the only thing that’s absolutely beyond doubt is that thought exists. Everything else is technically capable of being doubted (even the existence of the physical world!). Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am.


    Tony Reply:

    But what if “God” is actually consciousness itself?


  5. First, about signs. One of my best teachers gave me a great clue about them: It’s often very problematic if you’ll believe in signs, for it’s much easier to misinterpret them then to understand correctly. There are two types of signs mostly you could follow without any specific danger. The first one – is perfect gut feeling, especially if while thinking about decision you feel a kind of pleasant broadening feeling all over the body. And second one – your own invented signs. For example, when I see a Red Cross car – it’s a good sign for me. (Because there are huge “plus”) If you invent a sign, then you act as a Creator of your reality and thus it mostly should work. There’s no belief in some other, Higher Being in such signs.

    Second, simply a few anecdotes about divine intervention.
    Adam was very religious one. He’s followed all commitments, pray every day etc. But once there was huge disaster, tsunami, and he find himself alone somewhere at the middle of the sea. Then, as religious man he started to pray waiting for the miracle. After a while he saw a savior’s helicopter in the sky. But that doesn’t seem like saving by God and thus he didn’t react on it and simply continue his prayers. Then, a few hours later he saw a boat. But he wanted to be saved by God, not by people and thus he has ignored it and continued his prayers. A few hours later he saw a log. And it also doesn’t seem to him as any miracle. Thus he even doesn’t touch it.
    A few hours later he sinks.
    Then at heaven he meets with God and asks him. “Oh, my God, I was so religious, I prayed to you every day and night, why don’t you save me?” And the God answers “Stupid! Who do you think send to you that helicopter, that boat and that log?”

    Adam was very religious one. He’s followed all commitments, pray every day etc. And once he decided to pray God for one simple sign – to let him win a lottery. So he prays about it days and nights, but there were no result. But he continues to pray. Some years later he died and still didn’t win a lottery. At heaven he meets God and asks him: “Oh, my God, I was so religious, I prayed to you every day and night, why don’t you let me win a lottery?” And the God answers “Adam! Did you ever buy at least one lottery ticket?”

    Adam comes to rabbi and asks “What should I do? My son start follows and become a Christian!?” Rabbi answers “Oh, it’s a difficult question; I should ask God about it, so come tomorrow please” Next day Adam turns back to the rabbi for his answer. Rabbi says “Oh, Adam, I did ask God about your problem and He answers me that He has the same problem”.


  6. Hi Simon
    Just a short comment on ‘Sally’s car breaks down on the way to a job interview. Instead of rescheduling the interview, Sally cancels, taking it as a sign from her angels that she was not meant to take this job.

    I used to think like this before RPT…..I recently had an interview for a job too, I had never done this kind of work before but I knew I would really enjoy it, have fun and even knew within that I would get the job. However, just before the interview date I became ill and told myself I couldnt manage to travel to the interview. I always ‘feel into’ situations now and it was my fear of success that was making me ill. The end result was I acknowledged my fear, went for the interview, got the job and its great.
    Thanks for the post and thanks for RPT
    Liz :)


    Simon Rose Reply:

    hey Liz that’s awesome, congrats on the job. And I’m so glad you “get it” about your instincts.


  7. Hi Simon,
    Thanks so much for those insights. I think many of us get a little confused over what is divine intervention and what is not. It confirmed for me that, at least for myself, instead of looking outside myself it’s better to connect to the peace within and trust that answer.
    Best wishes,


    Simon Rose Reply:

    Thanks Mindy, that sounds like a very sensible approach you have – find your truth within.
    thanks for visiting the blog,


Leave a Reply


Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>