Re: Constructed Religions

On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:50:16 -0600 Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> writes:
>Steg Belsky wrote:
>> Eating something else, like an insect or a predator, would be
>> considered unusual and somewhat abnormal, but not "wrong".
>So much like our culture's view of eating insects, then?  Are there
>any
>animals, tho, that would be considered wrong to eat, like cats in our
>culture?
Not really....so far at least.  But it would be considered wrong to eat
an animal which has become a "pet", even if the species is generally
eaten, like if someone had a pet fish it would be considered wrong if
someone ate it.

>> Shail is similar to the biblical She'ol
>Was that another borrowing from Hebrew?
Yup...although _shail_ is a very old Rokbeigalmki word, most of those are
very obviously based on Hebrew.  _adereth_ on the other hand is more
recent, and i took it straight on purpose.  In Rokbeigalmki it's actually
from a verb-noun _aderet_ "to wrap (oneself)" (_da.aderet_ = "to wrap
(something else)")

>> Also, at life-cycle ceremonies (including funerals)
>Like rites of passage?
Yup.


-Stephen (Steg)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]