THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.religion.wicca,alt.religion.angels
From: paghat@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat)
Subject: Re: Supernal Midwife: Dark Face of the Mother Goddess
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:41:23 -0800

In article , "angelicusrex"
 wrote:

> "paghat"  wrote in message
> 
> > If you had not a clue that Lilith is in fact an angel who dwelt
> > originally underneath the Throne of Glory, & as Samael's queen was
> > furthermore Queen of Fallen Angels, then I'd say a great deal more
> > needs to be crossposted into the angel group, if truly the inhabitants
> > of that group know so very little about angel lore!
> 
> The crap that was spewed up here was not angel lore. It was something about
> idiotic goddesses of midwives. There was no context to the message. And it
> was certainly not asking us what we thought of the subject. However I told
> you... Most of the MYTHS about angels are pure drivel. Lillith is a myth,
> not a reality.

But some lowbrow suburban moron's New Age dinkus idea of smily-button
angels, that's real. Gadzooks! Methinks such dullar cranks have naytheless
long ceased to amaze me.

> And I know all about her

Liar. No one knows "all" about her, but you didn't even know the Supernal
Midwife is an angel, & just said specifically the Supernal Midwife is not
angel lore when in fact it's rather spectacular angel lore. So as it turns
out, you knew not even the rudiments of this angel lore, & just had a
kneejerk reaction to something in your own life. Your disliking this
central element of authentic & ancient angel mythology is one thing -- a
stupid thing, but tastes are tastes. Pretending to know "all" about it
while knowing very little, now that's totally void of merit.

>. I know every myth about so-called
> "angels" that you can toss out. I can cite hundreds of them. So what? I
> don't come to your group and knock the broomstick out of your ass crack!

No, but you're obviously trying, O Ye Great & Noble (or Geek & Nibbled)
Ruler of the Angel Newsgroup continuously crossposting your despisement of
crossposts, on topic though they've been from my side at least.
 
> > Well Saint, that's one good view of things. It requires you to believe
> > that all things influenced by these myths, including just about
> > everything culturally you believe or experience, & hence yourself, is
> > also worthless.
> 
> I'm not so sure my "culture" is worth a damn.

Self hate WOULD explain some your emptyheaded anger all righty.

> Neither does most of the rest
> of the world that wants to see all Americans dead. I'm not sure our myths
> have helped us or anyone else spiritually evolve. They seem rather vicious
> and useless to me. Cultures are all well and good, until we realize they are
> CULT-ures. And that if we don;t believe like the rest of our CULT-ure then
> we get ostracized or crucified. And if the damned things (myths)are going to
> be a bone of contention between people, then they really are a bunch of
> fairy tales that need to be revamped.

So you create your private cult which makes you as crabby & assinine as
all the stuff you allege to hate & which you are clearly party to.
 
> > I'm not saying it's a terrible point of view, but I
> > bet deep down, you don't believe that at all, or you wouldn't even
> > bother to mistake yourself for a saint.
> 
> First of all My name is David St. Albans. It's a NAME. get it? Saint is a
> nick name. 

No one thought it was a fact. If the name gets you so damned upset, change
it to Bob O'Dufus and we can all call you Duffy.

>It has nothing to do with religion, faith or myths. It's a name
> like Saint Louis or Santa Barbara or San Francisco. And I am really tired of
> everyone acting like it means something Catholic. It may have once upon a
> time. Like a fairy tale. But now it is just a name.

Good fucking jehosephat. All these places named by Catholics after
Catholic saints have nothing to do with anything Catholic. Very
interesting reasoning, though it fits your pattern of reasoning overall.

 Santa Barbara is named for Saint Barbara of the Pillar one of the key
patron saints of the Spanish settlers of the region. Louis IX became St
Louis because Pope Boniface VII canonized him, & the city is named for
him, silly you. As for St Albans, you happen to be named after the first
christian martyr of Britain, who lent his name to St Alban's Cathedral,
after which a couple of N.A. settlements were further named, & became
additional cities in honor of the catholic saint.  Now Albans was not
likely a historical figure but a cooptation of some pre-christian divinity
with a title like "the white." Most certainly St. Barbara, one of the most
important of medieval catholic saints, never actually existed; she was a
warlike reflex of Cybele as Pillar-goddess, so is often depicted with
fireworks & canons or standing beside a pillar. These are certainly all
christian now however & primarily of the Catholic type. 

As for San Francisco, its naming is sufficiently muddled historically that
not everyone agrees, but was most likely named either directly or
indirectly after St. Francis. Some few think it might've been named for
Sir Francis Drake, but that's not really possible since it was named by
two Spanish explorerers, who were themselves far too Catholic to have
canonized Drake on their own say-so as that would make them heretics & get
them in deep doodoo with the Cappuccins who liked to torture people. Fewer
still believe it was named after the "Francis" order of converted
aborigines who lived some while in the area, & that would make it a
Protestant name rather than Catholic, but that particular legend is much
more far-fetched than the normative one that Spanish explorers first named
the Bay after a favorite saint. There is last of all a family legend,
believed by no one but the descendants of one Francisco  Gali who explored
sundry places in the Pacific, & named San Francisco Bay after himself --
not likely, but even had it been true, Francisco was named for St Francis,
& was a Catholic Spaniard. Fact is, ALL the early missions were named for
important saints (San Diego, San Jose, etc) & no reason to look further
than St Francis of Assisi for this one. But because the name was
originally for the Bay before there was a settlement, & the city was not
itself called San Francisco until the 1840s, there's a few hundred years
of poorly documented coastal exploration by Spain and by Russia that
leaves the specifics in a muddle.

Why it would cheeze you off so much that people recognize your Catholic
name as a Catholic name is very odd -- that you never even learned such a
simple fact, though it's your own gawdamn name, & people have mentioned it
to you before, reveals what has already been quite evident, an inability
to learn.

In that your last name is that of the first English saint, it seems quite
unikely your first name David alludes to the biblical David, but to the
Welsh St. David who is about as likely to have existed as King Arthur, but
was an interesting fellow even so, allegedly the first primate of the
Cambrian church. His mother by some reckoning was an elf queen who became
an abbess, his father a king in Wales, & he is today still regarded as the
patron saint of Wales. I some while published a short story about his
encounters with a knight of the round table, when still a dirty hermit
living in a cave. Since that dirty hermit managed to rise in the world, so
might you someday! 

It's nothing to be ashamed of, but not knowing any of it about your own
name, THAT you should be ashamed of. 

By the way, anyone REALLY knowledgeable about angel lore inevitably
acquires an interest in early saint legends, as the greater majority were
coopted divinities such as were always either turned into either saints or
angels or both (St Gabriel for example is both Archangel and Saint, but
the name means "Strength of El" and likely originally of the Canaanite
pantheon under El and Asherah). The totally legendary early saints
continue to this day to function pretty much the same as guardian angels
for people who believe in such stuff, as saints & angels are seated
together flanking the Throne of Glory & have shared duties.

> As for my beliefs, I am NOT a Christian and I do not believe in ANY of the
> myths of any religions.(Not even Wiccan). I believe in what I see, hear and
> feel. I speak to angels physically. I do not need myths to counterbalance
> their weighty words.

If you trust only what you see, & you've seen angels, you need a CAT scan
of your brain to make sure there are no tumors pressing against your
eyesockets.

> But oddly no one seems to want to hear from or about REAL ANGELS. 

BWAAAhahahaha! What a christian boob you sound exactly like! 

> They'd
> rather deal with myths. Fine. Let them. All I was and am telling you is that
> the way it was presented was rude and meaningless. Lillith and Adam and Eve
> were at the very end of the diatribe and sort of stuck in their as if it all
> meant something to midwives. Plus it all seemed to be putting down midwives.

Hokey cow! You really are slow witted!
 
> Anyway, gods and goddesses natures and activities change. And I'm sure no
> one bows to gods and goddesses of pain and servitude any longer, unless they
> are bug-assed crazy.

Well, you're certainly bug-assed crazy, yet I gather you don't bow down to
divinities of pain, so being bug-assed is hardly the definition of such
worship. You definitely SOUND like you're in pain, so maybe you should
look into some of the Angels of Pain at the very least, since you've made
angels your gods in order to pretend you no longer believe in god. Angels
do tend to be meaner than ratshit if you actually look into the full scope
of beliefs about them & their alleged abilities. As for modern worship,
Mahadevi as worshipped by brahmanics, saktists, & northern buddhist
tantricists today, is at least 50% a goddess of destruction -- though a
full understanding of Kali, as of Lilith, reveals her to be the Good
Mother really. But no, Mahadevi or Maha-kali's millions of worshippers
today are not crazy, even if you like to think they are. It's your lack of
knowledge &/or wisdom, rather than their mental states, that causes you to
misunderstand so much. 

Now hurry run change your name to Bob O'Dufus then, but be sure to tell
everyone you're named for having had your tail bobbed, not after St Robert
the Benedictine, or you'll still be in the same pickle you are now,
denying that you & St Albans and St David and St Louis & St Barbara & St
Francis have anything to do with christianity.

-paghat the ratgirl

-- 
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
   -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/