At the invitation of Professor Robert, I'm starting a new thread.
Dr Bob, you are continually trying to draw clear distinctions between Catholicism and other (especially Christian) religions. I grant that Catholics are (a little) different, but, as they still fundamentally believe in the magic, invisible daddy in the sky, there is really NO difference.
Two points: The Bible (whether or not you take it literally) is the foundation of your (and all Christian) religions. A cursory examination of the Bible reveals a SMALL handful of usable tenets along with pages and chapters FULL of utter nonsense. The fact that any religion would base itself upon such a holey book, makes that religion as creditable as Joseph's golden tablets from God which he, unfortunately, misplaced.
God: I will be heartily disagreed with here, but I find the idea of God to be completely understandable. Here we have, at the dawn of civilization, various groups of totally ignorant people trying to put words, meanings, and causes to all manner of things which they couldn't possible understand. Combine this with a clever but ruthless set who have come to realize that, if they ascribed words, meanings, and causes to the world around them, people would actually BELIEVE them (as they no other source of information). These priests could and did use this power to govern the people - insisting that everyone in the tribe bow before them.
Then came the age of knowledge. We could start to actually understand all these things that the priests had, up till then, kept to themselves. As the power base for all civilized people rested with these priests, they were (and, of course, still are) wildly defensive of their position.
There is, however, NO CONCEIVABLE REASON for any educated person to believe in the supernatural - aside from these historic pressures.,
@Jorita, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Xhosa to be able to comment very well.
We all recognize that the Bohr model of the atom is wrong in some fundamental ways; the "civilized majority" of atomic scientists would recognize that. Yet, that does not make Bohr a poor scientist or mean that his model isn't still useful for some things. Often, too, when people are learning it can be helpful to teach oversimplifications even though we know they are wrong, just to meet each student's current abilities and needs.
To the extent that pre-Christian religions had practices or structures which were benign or useful, Christendom adopted or incorporated them. In Catholicism we'd say that we believe our way is the right way to salvation, but not the only way.
What I am pointing out is Xhosa ,Hindu, Christian, ect. All the different religions are inherited from culture and all of them are based on mythological figures, based on the Supernatural belief of that culture their superstitions, and man made rituals. To me the logic is that there is no logic in following or worshiping these, there would be no difference between me following Zues to you following christ the outcome of my worship and prayer would have the same result. The ifluence and capability of thess gods to be actively involed in a persons life is zero
Certainly doesn't sound like it's unchanging truth, does it?
Why would anyone believe that human understanding of the truth is unchanging?
Now THAT is a very good question, and you might try posing it to biblical literalists.
Last time I looked catholics believe in ghosts, the Holy Ghost to be more precise. Then it was changed to the Holy Spirit, when did that happen Prof. Robert.
I was told as a child, I had a guardian angel, do you not consider a guardian angel as supernatural. I was given cards during catechism, pretty little water colour cards, with child, an an angel hovering behind the child. I am curious if ex-catholics on this site were also given these cards. As a child, I took this literally, 'cause I was told this was true, and I believed it. I was told, as I was a recalcitrant, questioning child, to believe everything the bible said, the priest said and what the nuns said - as truth.
We were also given, I can't remember what they were called, on brown cord, small square pictures of god and angels, to hang around our necks, to keep us safe. They had been 'blessed' by the priest.
Still not answering questions Robert?
"We were also given, I can't remember what they were called, on brown cord, small square pictures of god and angels, to hang around our necks, to keep us safe. They had been 'blessed' by the priest."
That would be a scapular. My step-brother and a few of my Catholic friends still wear them.
I'm sorry, was there a question in there? Oh, about the translation of sanctus spiritus. Yes, the English translation was "Holy Ghost" for a while. I have no idea why. After Vatican II the Church paid more attention to and devoted more time to translations into the vernacular. It was then that it changed to "Holy Spirit", which is to my mind a better translation, since "ghost" in modern English refers to those spectres that haunt old buildings in odd "reality" shows with poor camera work.
I've always been amused by the retention of archaic English words in the Bible. "The Compilers" of the Bible are quite happy to change Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit, but they retain, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - as if God speaks in Middle English.
"When it comes to 'Thou shalt not kill', however, the archaic pronoun and verb aren't such a big concern"
I'm not concerned - just amused that, apparently God carved Middle English onto Moses' tablets. What other explanation is there for not moving to "You must not kill" when other, less obvious changes are made to the Word of God. Does anyone but God speak in Middle English?
Didn't you know that all the baddies in American films have an English accent? It's how you can tell that they are the baddies :)
That and Vincent Price.