Thursday, June 28, 2018

Rita on prophecy

The misuse of prophecy

From DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World Vol 2: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3882). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition".

(Q) So, what is appropriate for us to hear this morning?

(A) Beware applying Psychic's Disease to End Times.

(Q) Don't think you know what's coming.

(A) That's right, neither concept nor timing.  The desire to know ahead of time is understandable - I well remember it! - but really, useless.  It confuses the reason for prophecy with an advanced newscast.

(Q) Yes, I get that.  The purpose of prophecy is not to say, "You're all doomed!" but precisely the opposite, to say, "If you don't watch your feet, you're going to run off the edge so watch it, will you?"

(A) Precisely.  If the future were unavoidable there might be some reason to give you a preview of coming attractions, but - why?  It is because you can choose among futures that freedom exists, and it is the function of prophecy to remind you of it.

So, don't go putting all your money on Armageddon, or utopia, or anything in between.  You(in effect) create your future, by choosing who and what you wish to be.  And as alwaysremember that in any discussion the underlying question is "which you?"  You in your present body - how long do you expect to function in 3D?  Two hundred years further along, nobody will remember you, and why should they?  And why should you care if they do or don't? Your immortality is not a matter of reputation; it is inherent in your having been created in the first place.  Youwill survive and flourish; your body will not.  Be glad.

(Q) Not news to me.

(A) No, but this is aimed somewhat wider and deeper.  That is, to more people at this time, and to more at future times.

(Q) So - "don't think you know what's coming".  Why is that particularly appropriate today?

(A) It is not particularlyappropriate in the sense that this Wednesday morning it can be said and not the day or week before or after; only in the sense that this is among the thoughts that belong to this wider time.  To say it in 1950 would be to say it in a context that would probably envisage atomic warfare.  To say it in 1975 would be the cold war situation of the day.  And so forth.  Today, 2015, the message is appropriate.  That doesn't mean it is the onlytime it is appropriate, and it certainly doesn't mean it is the only message appropriate to the time, only that the two match up, as one example.

(Q) And yet - looking back at what we've written today - people do get glimpses of the future.

(A) They get glimpses of the future they later go to, and it's accurate pre-vision. They get glimpses of a future they don't go to, and it is incorrect prophecy.  Same process, same accuracy, different-seeming result, because of different outcomes of their navigation, not of different efficacy in perception.

(Q) So, Edgar Cayce saw the widespread destruction from 1958 to 1998 that did not happen.

(A) Did not happen where you are.  Your very fascination with the picture - your draw to it - shows you that you are also in touch with -

No, let me back off from that and say something different.

(Q) Why?

(A) Because what I willsay can be comprehended and what I will refrain fromsaying could not, and the resulting misinterpretation is unnecessary.

Catastrophic futures

You are fascinated with - almost desirous of - a catastrophic future.  In the same way, you were convinced of, and desirous of, Antarctica coming out from under the ice.  You do not fear or regret the earth changes, but look forward to them as facilitators of other things.  Do you see a common denominator here?

(Q) A wish for the transformation of this society, I suppose.

(A) A wish for the destructionof this society, and its replacement by a better.  Does this still strike you as such a good idea?

(Q) I get your point.  I used to believe in revolution.

(A) "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose". [French: "The more things change, the more it is the same thing."]

(Q) Revolutions are dead-ends, perhaps the least desirable way to change. Political, military, revolution, I mean. In my lifetime, I have seen my society revolutionized repeatedly, until it scarcely resembles the one I was born into in any respect.  I'm not sure - or rather, I am quite sure that not all the changes are in the right direction.

(A) Yes, but just because you are sure is no guarantee you are right.  How can you know which changes lead to what?

(Q) Again, point taken.  I suppose, in a way, even having preferences among changes is a form of Psychic's Disease.

(A) Not quite.  But preference can certainly distort perception.

No comments:

Post a Comment