Mr_Chaos
Member
We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
Posts: 29
|
Post by Mr_Chaos on Mar 30, 2009 2:50:47 GMT
Well from what I remember from my studies Loki was born of two giants and had the privileges of the Gods because he was sworn blood brother to Odin. Which is why I have heard him be referenced as "A Giant and a God". I only used Wikipedia to try and quickly confirm my suspicions, but maybe I and they are wrong. Can you point me in the direction of a site that might clear up my misconception.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 30, 2009 3:57:50 GMT
Can you point me in the direction of a site that might clear up my misconception. No, I do this off the top of my head. I could be wrong. I've read hundreds of books.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 30, 2009 4:06:28 GMT
From the Encyclopedia Mythica: "Loki is one of the major deities in the Norse pantheon. He is a son of the giant Farbauti ("cruel striker") and the giantess Laufey. He is regarded as one of Aesir, but is on occasion their enemy. He is connected with fire and magic, and can assume many different shapes (horse, falcon, fly). He is crafty and malicious, but is also heroic: in that aspect he can be compared with the trickster from North American myths. The ambivalent god grows progressively more unpleasent, and is directly responsible for the death of Balder, the god of light. Loki's mistress is the giantess Angrboda, and with her he is the father of three monsters. His wife is Sigyn, who stayed loyal to him, even when the gods punished him for the death of Balder. He was chained to three large boulders; one under his shoulders, one under his loins and one under his knees. A poisonous snake was placed above his head. The dripping venom that lands on him is caught by Sigyn in a bowl. But every now and then, when the bowl is filled to the brim, she has to leave him to empty it. Then the poison that falls on Loki's face makes him twist in pain, causing earthquakes. On the day of Ragnarok, Loki's chains will break and he will lead the giants into battle against the gods. Loki is often called the Sly One, the Trickster, the Shape Changer, and the Sky Traveler." So, he is the son of Jotun, but considered one of the Aesir. That clears that up.
|
|
Mr_Chaos
Member
We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.
Posts: 29
|
Post by Mr_Chaos on Mar 30, 2009 4:38:58 GMT
Yes but that is only because he is sworn blood brother to Odin. He was still born Jotun but is considered Aesir due to his oath. It seems to be kind of an unclear subject so for now lets just agree to disagree. Honestly, you seem to be much more knowledgeable on the Norse pantheon then myself as my studies on the subject have been fairly limited. I would not be surprised if you are right as I have just barely scratched the surface. Cheers, Mr_Chaos
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 30, 2009 4:56:58 GMT
Read where the 'war in the heavens' could have altered things here on Earth so much that the huge animals and extremely long lived humans could no longer remain as they were. The war, the evidence suggests, altered the climate in an instant and increased gravity. The gravity bit reduced our life expectancy and made it impossible for such large animals to now exist on this planet. Bit like a whale out of water.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by paulh on Mar 30, 2009 5:14:27 GMT
There is also thought that exposure to the light of an aging Sun is not so good for lifespan
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 30, 2009 13:33:40 GMT
... I could be wrong. ... NO! PLEASE SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!! Okay, it ain't so. ;D
|
|
|
Post by blackberry on Oct 19, 2009 0:39:22 GMT
at the end of the last ice age, the sea rose by around 450 ft. This swallowed up an area of land the size of north america and europe put together. Now when you consider that settlements are normally on low lands and near the sea it is no surprise that we aren't finding giant remains. Because the sea has destroyed the evidence. Lets face it, after so long, what would they find of us?? not a great deal. Maybe nothing.!! It doesn't prove that we never existed.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Feb 19, 2010 17:30:46 GMT
On the contrary, it proves that we never existed, wibble wibble.
|
|
|
Post by Zita on Oct 26, 2010 2:58:02 GMT
.. wibble, wibble?
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Oct 27, 2010 13:22:56 GMT
It's a general, all-purpose utterance denoting that the person speaking thinks the person being addressed is a gibbering loon. The immediate cultural source may be the following quotation, however, in which the person saying wibble is trying to convince the person addressed that he himself is mad. Edmund Blackadder, trying to prove he is mad, in his bunker, with underpants on his head and a pencil up each nostril [the setting is the First World War, btw. Hence the madness.] George: "What is your name?" Edmund : "Wibble." George: "What is 2 plus 2?" Edmund: "Wibble, Wibble." www.suslik.org/Humour/FilmOrTV/BlackAdder/misc.html
|
|
|
Post by Zita on Oct 27, 2010 23:20:38 GMT
It's a general, all-purpose utterance denoting that the person speaking thinks the person being addressed is a gibbering loon. It is said that what one sees is a reflection of one's self. Maybe the other person is a genuine seeker for that which was lost.. or someone who has found a treasure and is willing to share..
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 28, 2010 14:04:57 GMT
It's a general, all-purpose utterance denoting that the person speaking thinks the person being addressed is a gibbering loon. It is said that what one sees is a reflection of one's self. Maybe the other person is a genuine seeker for that which was lost.. or someone who has found a treasure and is willing to share.. Or perhaps, they are both crazy. Perhaps we all are.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Jun 15, 2011 12:08:07 GMT
Nope, I think it's just the one of us. The other one (i.e., not me).
|
|
cwhite
Member
Too much attention to subtleties makes you oblivious to the obvious.
Posts: 55
|
Post by cwhite on Aug 10, 2011 14:37:54 GMT
"There were Giants in the Earth in those Days"
Soooo, its "IN the Earth" not "ON the Earth"...
"Yup - Earth is the 'naughty chair'. "
Not Earth, but the realm of life and death, decay and renewal.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 11, 2011 23:11:04 GMT
"There were Giants in the Earth in those Days" Soooo, its "IN the Earth" not "ON the Earth"... Genesis 6:4
King James Version (KJV)
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Mistranslation? Allegory ? All those flying saucers which are seen disappearing into the oceans are peopled by large people ? Egyptian hierglyphs show tall people and small people together (th small people are usually the workers) Who knows... who is TMH ?
|
|
cwhite
Member
Too much attention to subtleties makes you oblivious to the obvious.
Posts: 55
|
Post by cwhite on Aug 12, 2011 0:04:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maat on Aug 12, 2011 0:13:37 GMT
Wow.. that is interesting. What do you know about this photo?
|
|
cwhite
Member
Too much attention to subtleties makes you oblivious to the obvious.
Posts: 55
|
Post by cwhite on Aug 12, 2011 0:25:54 GMT
What I know is speculatory at best, in any case I believe it to be (dont ridicule me) a Lemurian-Muanian. The pic comes from the mountains of Wyoming. The local tribes have storys about them (ranging from them being friendly healers to them being indian-eaters).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 12, 2011 13:49:04 GMT
Egyptian hierglyphs show tall people and small people together (th small people are usually the workers) I've told you and RH about this before, but you don't seem to take my word for it. Gods and Royalty are always depicted as being larger. This is part of the sacred geometry that the Khemetians used in their art. Read R. A. Schwaller De Lubicz's works, or John Anthony West's Serpent In The Sky, which gives a good overview of De Lubicz.Yep! We've been over this same ground a few times. As I recall, R.H. even posted links to images of specific pharaohs depicted on a grander scale than their subjects, yet seemed undeterred when it was pointed out that the mummies of these pharaohs were found and prove they were of normal stature. Yet here we are again pointing out a common artistic convention!? Go figure.
|
|