You really are tedious.
There is no widely available documentation or media coverage to verify this story.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
You really are tedious.
There is no widely available documentation or media coverage to verify this story.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Yes, a photo of a newspaper article in one single newspaper that can’t be found online is not ‘widely available media coverage’.
Also you misquoted me. I said “some media interest” which you changed to “significant coverage”.
There is no functional difference between ‘widely available media coverage’ and ‘significant coverage’. You claimed that it was given wide coverage. It wasn’t. My reply to your incorrect claim was accurate.
Plus you give no apology for misquoting me as claiming "extensive coverage". I won't hold my breath.
At no point did I use the term ‘extensive coverage’.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
What’s ‘In the media’ is a single tabloid-style piece that explicitly attributes the anecdote to ‘Brzakovic’ without any verification of the claimed details. Your standard of evidence is abysmal. Additionally, a Google search for pages consisting both "brzakovic" and "ratzinger" returns a total of 6 results, none of which are news sites.
GPT said there was no widely available media coverage, which is correct, and it was also correct that what is available is unverifiable. Your claim that “GPT … said there was no media report at all” is simply wrong.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
That’s wrong, it was in the Canberra Times (clipping linked above), described as a “compact” broadsheet not a tabloid, and can still be found, including the clipping, on many sites
It can be found on a smattering of JW related forums. I checked. The story tracks back to one lady’s unverifiable claim.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
ChatGPT gets facts wrong and claims certainty while doing it.
It can. But I separately verified what it said, which I specifically covered at the end of that post.
And the newspaper, conveniently not showing the actual source, reads like a tabloid piece. It also seems it is more likely the ‘example’ rather than ‘significant coverage’.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Halcon:
As I understand it, JW is not really considered protestant per se, altho I'm not sure what else they could be.
That is the official JW line, but they are fundamentally Protestant in origin, and routinely included in encyclopedias of religion as either Protestant or Adventist (which are also Protestant).
See also Thou Doth Protest Too Much (part of Pure Worship review).
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 7, pages 864-865 is fairly accurate about JWs. There is a statement that is occasionally cherry-picked by JW apologists as 'inaccurate' because it says JWs "are allowed no other books than the Bible and the society's own publications". This is sometimes falsely taken as an incorrect assertion that JWs can't read anything else, but the context of the statement is specifically regarding religious literature. The entry also specifically addresses the NWT's addition of "other" in Colossians along with comments about some other Bible verses. It describes the NWT as "excellent except when scientific knowledge comes into conflict with the accepted doctrines of the movement". It notes Jehovah's Witnesses as evolving out of being a sect into a denomination.
The 2nd Edition (2002), still in volume 7, addresses JWs on pages 751-752. Rather than add material to bring it more up to date, the section is briefer than the 1967 version, and notes that the JW growth rate has "slowed somewhat" since the rates seen in the 1930s and 1940s.
on a trip to rome a few years ago i asked my friend (who is roman and jw) what the catholic faith thinks of jw.
he simply stated that jw is tolerated by the church but that really not much thought is given to them.
is there an official stance on jw by the catholics?
Let's assess the claims for accuracy:
Assessment: Partially true.
Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) have a notable presence in Italy compared to other countries in Europe. Italy has one of the largest populations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe. According to the 2023 Jehovah’s Witnesses statistics, there are over 250,000 active Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy (including publishers and attendees), making it one of their stronger footholds in the region. That said, their numbers are small compared to the dominant Roman Catholic population, which still represents the overwhelming majority of Italians.
Assessment: False.
While Jehovah's Witnesses have a significant presence in Italy, they are not the largest Christian group outside of Catholicism. The largest Christian communities in Italy after Roman Catholics are typically Orthodox Christians (due to immigration from Eastern Europe, especially Romania) and Protestant groups such as Waldensians and Evangelicals. Jehovah's Witnesses, while prominent, are smaller in number compared to these groups.
Assessment: Unverified but plausible.
There are anecdotal reports and claims that Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) had a cousin who was a Jehovah's Witness and lived in Australia. However, there is no substantial evidence or reliable documentation to confirm this. Media interest in this topic, if it occurred, seems to have been minimal and likely not widely reported. Without further corroboration, this claim remains speculative.
Assessment: Unverified.
This detail about the cousin living in Australia and giving general media statements might stem from anecdotal reports but has not been substantiated by credible sources. There is no widely available documentation or media coverage to verify this story. It could be based on hearsay or misremembered information.
(GPT got some details wrong, specifically about the Waldensians having more members as a result of considering all Protestant denominations collectively. However, the Romanian Orthodox Church verifiably has more members in Italy than JWs do, even if counting all affiliated rather than just 'publishers'.)
And happy autumnal equinox to those in the southern hemisphere
i have been engaging in bible study with my bible study conductor for the past two years.
i am on lesson 48 of enjoy life forever book and it is only a matter of time before i complete lesson 60 which is the final lesson.
my bible study conductor informed me today that once i complete lesson 60, i won’t be receiving any more studies as i have been given all of the information that i need to make a decision.
I know what AI is, I don’t know myself to consciously use it.
Though I mentioned creative writing with a parenthetical possibility of AI-generated writing, you honed in awfully quickly on the AI part. The phrasing "I don’t know myself to consciously use it" is particularly evasive given that there isn't any plausible basis for using AI inadvertently.