Mythology with real places & people

Does the law in Harry Potter that outlaws the use of magic in the presence of normal people qualify as a law, or as a myth?What qualifies laws given in books that primarily consist of mythology as actual laws vs. mythical laws? Are real laws simply defined as those that people actually follow? Or are laws defined as mythical if the law incorporates mythology (ie, magic is mythical, therefore laws against using magic must be mythical as well)? Many people certainly follow the laws of the Bible, but many of those laws concern mythology (love the lord thy God with all your blah blah blah, thou shalt hold no other gods above blah blah, etc).If a law that is coincides with an actual law that is followed (say for the sake of argument that the Odyssey contained a directive against committing murder), would you then no longer be able to qualify the Odyssey as "a book of myth and legend" since it now contains a "real" law?I think you're playing semantics, and doing so poorly.

There are plenty of laws that nobody (or almost nobody) follows. There are also completely mythical laws (like the directive to love god, a mythical entity) that people do follow.What's your qualifier to be included as a "real law?" At what point can a text that otherwise contains fantasy no longer be considered to contain "nothing but myth and legend," and must suddenly include "and laws?" You're the one insisting that "nothing but myth and legend" does not apply to the Bible, so clearly you must know the factor that differentiates texts that contain "nothing but myth and legend" from the Bible. Then why did you start the semantic debate by insisting that teh Bible cannot be considered to contain "nothing but myth and legend?" You're the one who started splitting hairs. It's no fault of mine that you suck at it Your claim that the Bible cannot be considered to be "nothing but myth and legend" requires that you know the differentiating factor that separates texts that "contain nothing but myth and legend" from those that contain "laws and poems and myth and legend." If you cannot actually tell the difference, then you're just making it up as you go along and nitpicking semantics to be an ass. So then are novels based in real-world locations no longer fictional, because they refer to real-world places and events? Clearly they contain something that's not fictional, so by your excessively-strict standards we should not consider them to contain "nothing but fiction."Let's not restrict this to laws. You also referred to poems and songs and prayers in the same line of reasoning. Since the prayers and songs and poems are about a mythical entity, and frequently recount legends regarding that mythical entity, would it not be proper to classify them as "myth and legend?" If we discovered a poem about Zeus, wouldn't we consider that poem "mythology?"By what standard are you qualifying Biblical poetry, prayers, and songs as more than myth and legend? Since you seem to be applying the same standard to laws (such as the "you shall love the -mythical entity- with all of your mind, all of your heart, and all of your -mythical soul-" law) to claim that they are not simply "myth and legend," you should be able to tell us what the standard is. That's true...but how many former religious texts or oral traditions would we today consider to be "nothing but myth and legend," but were also used as guiding principles for real peoples' lives? I'm just playing the game you started, CS, to point out that your nitpicking is foolish. If you're going to start down the "technically..." route, you need to be consistent in your splitting of hairs. If you can't give us the consistent standard by which you determine where a text contains "nothing but myth and legend" vs "myth, legend, laws, prayers, poems, and songs," then your semantics argument falls apart, and you're just being stubborn and difficult.

I am. The poetry, songs, prayers and laws contained therein are simply part of the mythology, as with all other works of fiction. That some people are gullible enough to actually believe it and follow the instructions of a book of legend and mythology is irrelevant; fairy tales sometimes teach good morals, too, and we don't all them anything but fairy tales. I did address the nature of your argument. It would help if you would specifically quote and address any part of my post that you take issue with, rather than posting three lines that can be compressed into "WTF." The act of responding on a point-by-point basis may assist your reading comprehension.

It's typically a little of both - an exaggerated and altered version of the original, historical event. The argument with greentwiga over the flood myth is a perfect example - there very likely was a severe regional flood that historically actually happened, and this real event gave rise to the flood myth.Of course, to say that this means that the flood myth is "historical and factual" is still dishonest - there was no global flood, every living thing did not die, etc.I know, Peg. You believe the flood was global and actually happened. You also have not one shred of evidence to back up that belief beyond your book of myth and legend

They refer to a mythical character, and tell of his mythical properties and mythical deeds. That makes them "mythology." I'd also classify any prayer to Zeus as "mythology," and poem regardign the explits of Heracles as "mythology," any song retelling the birth of Athena as "mythology," and any law that says "sacrifice a goat to Poseidon" as "mythology."Even if the ancient Greeks all believed they were absolutely true and followed the mythological law.In what way are they not mythology, CS? They're laws given by a fictional, mythical character, CS. If the entire US Federal Law code were recounted to human beings by Thor, it would qualify as "mythology." If the California Constitution were duplicated in a Harry Potter prequel, the prequel would still qualify as being "nothing but mythology." Leviticus also contains laws like this:

quote:

---

Leviticus
1:17 And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

​

2:2 And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD:

​

2:10 And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire.

​

3:16 And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour: all the fat is the LORD's.

​

5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

​

6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.

​

7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

---

It also contains plenty of mythology:

quote:

---

More Leviticus

​

6:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

​

8:8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

​

9:24 And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

---

Or Leviticus 14, which contains a treatment for leprosy involving killing a bird, dipping a living bird in its blood, sprinkling the blood on the leper seven times, killing a lamb, wiping the lamb's blood on the leper's right ear, thumb, and big toe, sprinkling the leper with oil and then wipingoil on his right ear, thumb and big toe, doing the dead-bird's-blood-on-a-live-bird thing again, wiping that blood on the leper's right ear, big toe, and thumb, and then sprinkling the leper's house with blood seven times.Yes, CS, it's all just mythology and legend. Even the laws. It's all magic woo woo hoopajoo nonsense, no different from the mythology of other ancient cultures. If the Bill of Rights came only from a mythical source, I would call it "mythology," even if we followed it today.If you wrote a fairy tale containing the Bill of Rights, I would still call your fairy tale nothing but a fairy tale.Clearly you have some standard you're applying, CS, to determine what is and is not "nothing but mythology and legend." But you've still refused to write that standard down. I'll ask again: by what criteria do you judge what we can call "nothing but mythology and legend?"