Source of Synchronicity

As I said,

One must often trust an author. I deliberately used the word “trust” in my discussion rather than “faith” because we have some fairly technical uses of “faith.” Such meanings indicate a difference in our trust in our Lord and our trust in an author of a website, book, article, etc. For the sake of clarity, I am relying on definitions of “faith” such as Hebrews 11:1, for example:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
My faith in Jesus is quite different from my trust in the writing of even a long-dead mathematician like Leibnitz, whose work and life have an extensive paper trail that can be followed. Jesus requires something quite different from us. (See also John 20:29 – Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”). I used “trust” to attempt to speak clearly.

We (Many other Forum participants and I) have been over these before. There is no need for further discussion.

Which is different from having any sort of objective (culturally agreed on) meaning in themselves.

Dale, I’ve see good and bad examples of outcomes from people relying on what is, in this thread, referred to as “Synchronicities.” Someone like Müller, or my friend Pat, at least have some street cred both in their demonstration of faith and lives of extreme service. I’m willing to hear their side, and I have. But even in their lives, with their great faith, I see a good deal of subjectivity in interpretation of what counts as a word from God and what it is understood to mean. There are no guarantees of understanding or outcome. And in that lack of guarantee, our faith in what we can’t see or understand is required. I don’t put my faith in synchronicities or omens or the like, but in Jesus.

Furthermore, I dislike additional implications of the word “Synchronicities” which have nothing to do with our Lord answering prayer or loving his children. It is too esoteric with hints of occult for my taste. My cousins are wrapped up in Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry in Redding, CA, among the worst of the worst abusers. Others I know are wrapped up with charlatans like Benny Hinn.

My personality is naturally skeptical, and I find this a good thing, although imperfect. It does not eliminate faith at all, but it makes me a wary customer of spiritual matters beyond Scripture, which I believe is strictly closed.

Gary Friesen’s old book, Decision Making and the Will of God (IVP) has been instrumental in the development of my thinking in areas such as this, if you’re interested. You are under no obligation to be.

3 Likes

Yes, as I said early on. Or did your ‘also’ mean ‘too’. It took me literally years before the obvious ‘co-instants’ and ‘co-instance(s)’ (denoting not a chance!) occurred to my denseness while I was looking for a suitable replacement for the merely coincidental.

Oops. Snagged the wrong quote.

I always wonder when someone points to God’s role in their survival of a tumor scare what such people must think of all their fellow Christians who are not so lucky. Inferior faith or just less favored? To say nothing of the fact that death awaits us all. And as for we nons surely we souls all have perished long ago. Or maybe God doesn’t play God with the time and manner of our departure?

2 Likes

Some may recall that I would have been fine with ‘leaving’, and our dear late Glenn Morton did not have it easy. Others may recall that God is inscrutable and that he designs/assigns trials for his children individually to strengthen them. He is in control of all our times and places and he is not playing the games others do.

I went ahead and edited to say: Furthermore.

I am comfortable with the concept of co-incidence or coincidence. I understand theological arguments against the term. I also see much evidence that God allows nature to take nature’s course as He made it to do. In the end, I am not willing to discuss or consider God’s direct intervention in a great number of things that are hideous beyond belief. I am not willing “try to learn” from such experiences of mine and others. As I mentioned earlier:

The evil comes with the good for the believer and the unbeliever. They are synchronous. I decline to interpret beyond that.

Anyone is welcome to see differently.
If the Lord wants me to, He will make it clear himself.

3 Likes

That is not totally unreminiscent of these:

ETA: I’m not the cold analytical guy that may sound like and I’m not playing a game pretending to be something I’m not. Some might recall that I’m one who gets damp eyes pretty much every day when I’m watching the evening news and have to get a fresh tissue.

He might even use a coincidence to do it.

What exactly is the difference of understanding?

It’s like arguing over when short hair becomes long hair.

1 Like

Or the difference between the timing and placing of a mutation in DNA compared with the timing and placing of a Turkish translator.

1 Like

And with an infinite potential of worlds, one with and without that translator are possible… at least that’s how some people claim it’s supposed to work.

1 Like

How do I feel about “Doing Stalin in four?” Rather confused.
“doing Stalin in four” is unclear to me. So many ways to break it up. Maybe it’s a colloquialism I’m not grasping? Hmm.

“Doing Stalin” could be imitating him in some way; doing him over (aka mugging him).
“in four” – could be 4/4 time; in a group of four; in four acts; in four minutes; in four hours.
This part is currently impenetrable to me.

How do I (while deliberately exploiting the vagueness of “you” in your question) feel about “Through me. Now that’s a fact.”?

It’s to be expected; feeling is irrelevant. Of course you are the puppet master of any interpretation of the confluence of abstracted persons you encounter here and the way you understand what we have attempted to express. As are all of us. Your reception of the representations of ourselves and our thoughts is entirely a function of your self.
Any meaning you give to our “being here” at the same time, same forum, etc, is entirely up to you.

2 Likes

Four person to person interactions. I can do it in three face to face. By two routes. Like anyone in Hollywood needs two for Kevin Bacon.

1 Like

Three face to face! Impressive. Two can be overwhelming to me.
Edited days later……
@Klax, I think I understand differently and rightly, what you mean by “doing Stalin.” Comprehension can come so slowly at times. “Lucky” you. In 3 steps by two routes. I guess it pays to “know the right people.”

1 Like

Sorry for the long hiatus, y’all. I see I have a lot to respond to! I intend to reply later this weekend, but I have to crash for now. We have an event tomorrow, & it’s late.

Your comprehension isn’t aided by my almost idiolectic Briticisms.

1 Like

I enjoy thinking about what they might mean. So not great for communication but more fun than a bushel barrel full of monkey’s uncles.

2 Likes

You, Sir, are my elder, and I have not respected that enough, not realising it. I have engaged in unnecessarily narrow eyed, no quarter, sword play. My apologies.

2 Likes

My comprehension is, however, frequently broadened. As a former foreign language major, it really is my pleasure to engage with English (even your peculiar variation) in different ways. I’ve never understood how just the right, unique turn of phrase manages to bring me joy, but it does. Humanities people!

2 Likes

If it’s a duel you seek I would suggest canes or hoes. We may not be so far apart in age as my wife is ten years my senior. Met at 30 & 40 at which time she was still in her prime. Everything about aging is better except all the parts that fail. Perfect design, my arse!

3 Likes

Ah HAH! I thought so : ) sOhhhhhhhh, it’s still a level playing field eh? En garde!

1 Like