|
Author
|
Topic: Mythology with real places & people
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 86 of 289 (511615)
06-10-2009 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Theodoric
06-10-2009 3:53 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
No one is saying it is JUST a book of myths and legends
I am saying that.
Well then you're wrong. It also has laws, poems, songs, prayers, etc.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2009 3:53 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2009 5:56 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 102 of 289 (511689)
06-11-2009 8:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Theodoric
06-10-2009 5:56 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
It is as much mythology as the greek and roman myths or the egyptian myths or any other myths from the bronze age. Sure, but its not JUST mythology.
The laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. are all based upon the myths and legends. Without the myths and legends you don't have all of the rest. You don't even know what you're talking about. You're just making stuff up. Thanks for the unsupported assertion.
Saying I am wrong is pretty strong statement. You can believe what you want, but to me it is all myth and legend. Well whoopty-frickin-do. A list of laws for a group of people doesn't really qualify as a myth or a legend. A prayer or a song is not a myth or legend, its a prayer or a song. Its obvious that you're wrong when you say that it is JUST myth and legend. But as you say, you can believe whatever you want. Even wrong stuff.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 06-10-2009 5:56 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Try Again
From Message 103 Well explain how the the laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. have any meaning without the myth and legend that accompanies them. I'm not claiming that they have any meaning without the myth and legend that accompanies them. I'm saying that the claim that the Bible is JUST myth and legend is wrong.
How is it an unsupported assertion? Because you asserted it without supporting it 
Show an external source that gives them relevance without their mythological basis. For what? That has nothing to do with this. You've claimed the Bible is JUST myth and legend. I'm saying there is stuff in the Bible that is neither myth nor legend. Here, have an example:
quote:
Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
That is a law. Its is not a myth and it is not a legend. It is in the Bible. Ergo, the Bible contains something that is not a myht or a legend. Why even argue against it?
A prayer to a supernatural entity may not be directly itself a myth but it is a prayer to a mythological being. The songs, prayers, whatever are part of the mythology that is the bible. If you're just going to define everything in the Bible as myth as one of your premesis then you are just Begging the Question. So if you want it that way then you're not really "wrong", you're just illogical.
Again I have to ask what is the whole rudeness and condescension that comes from christianists whenever anyone makes a comment about their book? Have I been rude? There is no reason to be an a-hole. Present your evidence to try to convince of your argument. If you can't do that politely, then please don't respond. Welcome to the internets, jackass  Get some thicker skin, geez. That, or start crying already. From Message 105 According to some the bible is actually folklore. Myth is part of folklore.
quote:
"myth" is not a synonym for error or fallacy but is rather a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form. Myth is one genre out of several hundred genres of folklore
Well that definition actually supports my position, thanks. The law I listed above is not "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form" so by definition it is not a myth. Yeah! I win, woo hoo!
Catholic Scientist : 1 Theodoric : 0 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 9:10 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Try Again
Catholic Scientist writes: That is a law. Its is not a myth and it is not a legend. It is in the Bible. Ergo, the Bible contains something that is not a myht or a legend. I'll give you a partial on the above. Huh? What do you mean you'll "give" it to me and what is a "partial"? And how did you go about quoting me and then misspelling something that I didn't? Don't you copy and paste?
The mythological is the fact that there is no evidence of where these laws came from, ie:Historical Fiction That doesn't even make sense. You have an adjective as the subject of the sentence. But you seem to be saying that an unknown origin of a law makes it mythological, yeah? Non-sequitor.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Try Again
I didn't realize this was an English class, ever hear of of typo, I'm not trying to teach you something, I'm trying to make sense out of what you typed.
as for your quote, check your original I did, which is why I brouht it up. But now that I've double checked, I see that I did misspell it. When I looked the first time, I looked about an inch above it and only saw the correctly typed one. oh well. I fucked up.
as for the adjective it will be corrected. Hrm, Now I got to go back to that post to get it. I guess I'll just reply to it here.
from Message 107 I'll give you a partial correctness on the above. The mythological part is the fact that there is no evidence of where these laws came from, ie:Historical Fiction Well, thank you sir for your kind gift of partial correctness. I still maintain that you have a non-sequitor though. How does lacking evidence of the source of a law make that law a myth? A law is just a law. Its a rule, it can't really qualify as a "myth". If we didn't know where the seatbelt law came from, that wouldn't mean that it is a myth. Or even just some random made-up law: If you spit your gum on the ground, you have to clap 5 times or you'll be fined $5. That is just some random bullshit, but it doesn't qualify as a myth, by definition.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 113 of 289 (511722)
06-11-2009 12:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by Theodoric
06-11-2009 12:13 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
Since CS seems to be so hung up on grammar and semantics, and his desire to split hairs, All we have to go on is what you have typed. It helps if you type what you mean and mean what you type.
I guess I should have said it this way. The bible is BASED on mythology and legend. Of course it is. Duh. Who's gonna argue against that. But that is a whole different claim than: The Bible is JUST myth and legend, which is obviously false. Which is why nobody would claim that, like Brian said in Message 73.
One can come back and say that Paul's letters are not legendary or mythological, but their whole premise is based upon the legend and mythology of the OT and Jesus. That is how I get to my statement that the bible is legend and myth. If you don't mind being terribly illogical, then keep on with your statement. But a letter, or a law, that is based on myth is not necessarily a myth itself. It obvious from the definition that you provided yourself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 06-11-2009 12:13 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 12:49 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 115 of 289 (511731)
06-11-2009 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
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? If nobody is following it, then how can it be a law?
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). I'm sorry, but I'm not a lawyer. I don't know exactly where something becomes a law and where being a law ends. I don't want to turn this into a semantic debate.
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? That's pretty much my point, except its not that you cannot call it "a book of myth and legend", its that you cannot correctly claim that it "ONLY contains myth and legends", because, obviously, there is something else in there that isn't a myth and isn't a legend. And its not that Leviticus just coincided with an actual law, it was the law.
I think you're playing semantics, and doing so poorly.  That's what you are doing!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 12:49 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by Nuggin, posted 06-11-2009 1:17 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied | | | Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 2:59 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Try Again
I didn't say the law was a myth but that the source was a myth.
Then that doesn't even make me only partially correct in my claim that the Bible contains things other than just myths and legends. And your whole thing about there being no evidence of where the laws came from isn't even all that accurate. You can read about it on wikipedia Gosh, it seems you're whole point was fairly shallow and pedantic. I suppose if you wrote more than just one-liners I could have wasted less time on you 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by bluescat48, posted 06-11-2009 2:34 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 121 of 289 (511753)
06-11-2009 4:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 2:59 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
What the fuck are you going on and on about!? Are you taking the position that the Bible contains JUST myth and legend (and nothing more) or not? Or would you rather just discuss the nature of my argument?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 2:59 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 5:54 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 147 of 289 (511842)
06-12-2009 9:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 122 by Rahvin
06-11-2009 5:54 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
The poetry, songs, prayers and laws contained therein are simply part of the mythology, as with all other works of fiction. How are they a part of the mythology? Just because they're in the book? That'd be circular reasoning. Leviticus is laws. Its not really even a story. It doesn't count as mythology. I don't agree that surrounding it in mythology makes it too mythology.
That some people are gullible enough to actually believe it and follow the instructions of a book of legend and mythology is irrelevant; But its not that they believe it, its that it was the actual rules that were given to people to follow, not just a story that they believed in. It would be like including The Constitution in to a piece of fiction and then saying that The Constitution is also fiction because in was in a fictitious book.
fairy tales sometimes teach good morals, too, and we don't all them anything but fairy tales. So if I write a fairy tale that includes The Bill of Rights, does the Bill of Rights become a myth?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 122 by Rahvin, posted 06-11-2009 5:54 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 161 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 12:44 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 148 of 289 (511844)
06-12-2009 9:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Rrhain
06-12-2009 5:11 AM
|
|
Neither are the mythologies of Greece, Rome, Egypt, or any of the other cultures of the Bronze Age. Sure, I'd bet.
Why the special pleading for this one? Huh!? Where did I special plead?
What's your problem? Why do you always put words in my mouth? Why do you always assume things that you think other people must be saying? God damn you're an annoying asshole.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 06-12-2009 5:11 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 248 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2009 7:59 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 162 of 289 (511882)
06-12-2009 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 12:44 PM
|
|
Re: Try Again
Leviticus is laws. Its not really even a story. It doesn't count as mythology. I don't agree that surrounding it in mythology makes it too mythology. 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." But Leviticus wasn't given by a fictional, mythical character. It was a code of laws developed by the priests.
So if I write a fairy tale that includes The Bill of Rights, does the Bill of Rights become a myth? If the Bill of Rights came only from a mythical source, I would call it "mythology," even if we followed it today.
But Leviticus doesn't come only from a mythical source. You're wrongly calling it mythology.
Leviticus also contains laws like this: Containing some myth doesn't make it all myth. Do you consider the U.S. Declaration of Independence to be mythology because it references the Creator?
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?" And I still refuse to write out some criteria. Its unimporant to my point: The Bible contains laws that do not count as mythology, ergo it doesn't contain JUST mythology. The reasons that the laws do not count as mythology have already been discussed:
quote:
Leviticus is laws. Its not really even a story. It doesn't count as mythology. I don't agree that surrounding it in mythology makes it too mythology. ... its that it was the actual rules that were given to people to follow, not just a story that they believed in. ... And its not that Leviticus just coincided with an actual law, it was the law. ... Here, have an example:
quote:
Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
That is a law. Its is not a myth and it is not a legend. It is in the Bible. Ergo, the Bible contains something that is not a myht(sic) or a legend. ... From Message 105 According to some the bible is actually folklore. Myth is part of folklore.
quote:
"myth" is not a synonym for error or fallacy but is rather a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form. Myth is one genre out of several hundred genres of folklore
Well that definition actually supports my position, thanks.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 12:44 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 261 of 289 (512220)
06-15-2009 9:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by Rrhain
06-15-2009 7:59 AM
|
|
Oh, I see. You misunderstood me. You do that a lot because you're always trying to read something into what I've written.
By trying to elevate the text beyond that, you attempt to make it something more than what we find in other works that we call "mythology." You're wrong on both counts. Hell, in the part you quoted I even agreed that:
quote:
It is as much mythology as the greek and roman myths or the egyptian myths or any other myths from the bronze age.
and if you keep me in context, you can see that I'm arguing against this position:
quote:
it is JUST a book of myths and legends
So... yeah, you're way off. But this is pretty standard from you. I've come to expect it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2009 7:59 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 285 by Rrhain, posted 06-17-2009 5:14 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2