|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:13 pm
 |
|
|
 |
AshTaros Ok, I should not have called you darling, but why do you have to jump down my throat about this?
Quote: Quote: They're wrong, I don't have to tolerate them, and if he's not evil, why suggest he is? I never did. Hence those things called quote marks.
Quote: Quote: Loki isn't dark, the Jotnar aren't Gods, and I question your experience. Question it all you like. And who are YOU to say what is a God and what is not?
Quote: Quote: And the closest thing we have to the Gods opinion is the Sagas, so above all else, I will go with them. Actually, the closest thing we have to the God's opinion is what They say Themselves. Maybe you should consider listening to Them and compare that to what you read.
Quote: I don't know why you are spoiling for a fight. It's ridiculous. You know, maybe you should go back and read the rules of etiquette. You may not agree with how I see things but you don't have to be a b*tch about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:52 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Celeblin Galadeneryn ... the Jotnar aren't Gods, and I question your experience. I questioned this in Deo's Pathways thread, perhaps you'll be able to put it to rest. Is there a term that addresses all of what we could call divine beings amongst Norse pagan folklore? I ask because it has always read as different factions within a supergroup, and when I have seen individuals translate AEsir and Vanir as gods while translating Jotnar as "giants, not gods", I haven't seen any justification.
My justification is primarily linguistic, and just because they aren't "Gods" doesn't mean they aren't worshipped. Just that "Gods" are a specific group within the Norse: the Aesir and the Vanir, and either of them can be called Godhr.
The Jotnar are certainly interrelated with the Gods, and other beings are worshipped as well, such as the Alfar, they just aren't called "Gods".
Greek taxonomy isn't so different. There are supernatural beings who aren't Gods who would get temples, most usually heroes, but also satyrs and nymphs. Heroes are a little different because they're almost a function of ancestor worship, but then again, ancestor worship and God worship is kind of muddled in Indo-European systems, as people will worship as an ancestor someone who is a God in Greek systems (Such as Herakles), and as for the Norse, there's that whole mess with Rig, so depending on who we're supposed to think he is, either Heimdall or Odhinn is to be treated as a direct ancestor of everyone.
As for why there's a difference the etymology comes into play. Jotnar is from *etunaz, which gives a connotation of eating, as in being a glutton. Makes sense since one of the other words for them, Thursar, derives from the same root as "thirst". It's basically a connotation of chaotic consumers, large in proportion and what they want (Hey, one of them did demand Freyja).
a** on the other hand comes from *ansuz, which has a relation to the Avestan ahura and the Sanskirt asura, and basically refers to a divine being, a high order of being, though the Sanskrit version are more demonic. Basically, those that are Aesir are clearly divine.
Vanir's little less clear because it basically means "the strivers" but that might have more to do with the war.
If anything, I would have less of an argument saying that the Alfar are not Gods because the phrase that translates as "The Aesir and Alfar" basically means "All the Gods" (uses interchangably with The Aesir and Vanir") |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:42 am
|
|
|
|
AshTaros Quote: Why does every ******** person who throws a s**t fit when they're questioned (or called out for being an overly personal condescending a**, right darling?) think that the entire basis of the arguments against their claims is UPG vs. UPG? I apologized for using an overly friendly term. I am all for discussion, but there are ways to politely disagree without condemning someone as absolutely wrong.
Actually when one's position (don't make this personal, no wonder you're so offended) is absolutely wrong (or one's opponent sees one's position as absolutely wrong) it is simply honest to make such an assessment. To obfuscate the stance of one it is a disservice to all.
Overly friendly terms when in opposition to someone in debate are seen as supremely condescending. It doesn't matter what your intent is, that is the way it almost invariably comes across. Don't do it.
Quote: I agree that when you try to compare Lore vs. UPG you come up empty-handed. But where did the lore come from? At one point, it too was controversial UPG.
You're going to need to provide proof of Lore invariably coming from controversial UPG. Hint: Absolute statements are almost always a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:11 am
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox AshTaros Quote: Why does every ******** person who throws a s**t fit when they're questioned (or called out for being an overly personal condescending a**, right darling?) think that the entire basis of the arguments against their claims is UPG vs. UPG? I apologized for using an overly friendly term. I am all for discussion, but there are ways to politely disagree without condemning someone as absolutely wrong. Actually when one's position (don't make this personal, no wonder you're so offended) is absolutely wrong (or one's opponent sees one's position as absolutely wrong) it is simply honest to make such an assessment. To obfuscate the stance of one it is a disservice to all. Overly friendly terms when in opposition to someone in debate are seen as supremely condescending. It doesn't matter what your intent is, that is the way it almost invariably comes across. Don't do it. Quote: I agree that when you try to compare Lore vs. UPG you come up empty-handed. But where did the lore come from? At one point, it too was controversial UPG. You're going to need to provide proof of Lore invariably coming from controversial UPG. Hint: Absolute statements are almost always a bad idea.
For instance, it's not Virgil's controversial UPG that Aeneas met Dido, he's introducing her as a character to provide a connection to Rome's old enemy Carthage. And even if it was his UPG, that would make him very, very stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
