Is it wrong to mock and ridicule the Watchtower Society?

by yadda yadda 2 76 Replies latest jw friends

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    Robert J Ingersoll on the great Voltaire:

    "It has been claimed by the Christian critics that Voltaire was irreverent; that he examined sacred things without solemnity; that he refused to remove his shoes in the presence of the Burning Bush; that he smiled at the geology of Moses, the astronomical ideas of Joshua, and that the biography of Jonah filled him with laughter. They say that these stories, these sacred impossibilities, these inspired falsehoods, should be read and studied with a believing mind in humbleness of spirit; that they should be examined prayerfully, asking God at the same time to give us strength to triumph over the conclusions of our reason. These critics imagine that a falsehood can be old enough to be venerable, and that to stand covered in its presence is the act of an irreverent scoffer. Voltaire approached the mythology of the Jews precisely as he did the mythology of the Greeks and Romans, or the mythology of the Chinese or the Iroquois Indians. There is nothing in this world too sacred to be investigated, to be understood. The philosopher does not hide. Secrecy is not the friend of truth. No man should be reverent at the expense of his reason. Nothing should be worshiped until the reason has been convinced that it is worthy of worship.

    Against all miracles, against all holy superstition, against sacred mistakes, he shot the arrows of ridicule.

    These arrows, winged by fancy, sharpened by wit, poisoned by truth, always reached the centre.

    It is claimed by many that anything, the best and holiest, can be ridiculed. As a matter of fact, he who attempts to ridicule the truth, ridicules himself. He becomes the food of his own laughter.

    The mind of man is many-sided. Truth must be and is willing to be tested in every way, tested by all the senses.

    But in what way can the absurdity of the "real presence" be answered, except by banter, by raillery, by ridicule, by persiflage? How are you going to convince a man who believes that when he swallows the sacred wafer he has eaten the entire Trinity, and that a priest drinking a drop of wine has devoured the Infinite? How are you to reason with a man who believes that if any of the sacred wafers are left over they should be put in a secure place, so that mice should not eat God?

    What effect will logic have upon a religious gentleman who firmly believes that a God of infinite compassion sent two bears to tear thirty or forty children in pieces for laughing at a bald-headed prophet?

    How are such people to be answered? How can they be brought to a sense of their absurdity? They must feel in their flesh the arrows of ridicule.

    So Voltaire has been called a mocker.

    What did he mock? He mocked kings that were unjust; kings who cared nothing for the sufferings of their subjects. He mocked the titled fools of his day. He mocked the corruption of courts; the meanness, the tyranny and the brutality of judges. He mocked the absurd and cruel laws, the barbarous customs. He mocked popes and cardinals and bishops and priests, and all the hypocrites on the earth. He mocked historians who filled their books with lies, and philosophers who defended superstition. He mocked the haters of liberty, the persecutors of their fellow-men. He mocked the arrogance, the cruelty, the impudence, and the unspeakable baseness of his time.

    He has been blamed because he used the weapon of ridicule.

    Hypocrisy has always hated laughter, and always will. Absurdity detests humor, and stupidity despises wit. Voltaire was the master of ridicule. He ridiculed the absurd, the impossible. He ridiculed the mythologies and the miracles, the stupid lives and lies of the saints. He found pretence and mendacity crowned by credulity. He found the ignorant many controlled by the cunning and cruel few. He found the historian, saturated with superstition, filling his volumes with the details of the impossible, and he found the scientists satisfied with "they say." "

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    It has been said that the best way to highlight absurdity is to be absurd.

    WT is infinitely absurd.

    The answer to your question is "No".

  • quellycatface
    quellycatface

    Definitely No.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    I'll go so far as to give you an answer from WT literature why exposing WT stupidity is not wrong. If they don't like what we do here, then they shouldn't have written this:

    .

    "So, then, when religious leaders and organizations of Christendom misrepresent God’s Word by teaching traditions of men, is it wrong to expose their false doctrines? When they claim to be following Christ and yet mix in worldly politics, is it a bad thing to publicize that their actions are unchristian and condemned by God? Should the truth be suppressed because it exposes falsehood and corruption? Never! Jesus never hesitated to speak the truth, even though he was killed at the instigation of the angered religious leaders for doing so.—John 17:14; Jas. 4:4.

    Therefore, how will you respond when pointed statements are made about false religious teachings and corrupt practices? Will you immediately condemn the person or organization making the exposé? Do you feel it is all right to teach lies and misrepresent God’s Word, but wrong to expose the error? Contrary to what some may think, it is not unkind and unloving to lay bare falsehood and corruption." ---W 3/1/66, p. 132

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    Voltaire was a great man. Mocking and ridiculing bombastic self-righteous hypocrisy is an imperative IMHO.

  • Holey_Cheeses*King_of_the juice.
    Holey_Cheeses*King_of_the juice.

    The wts by its very existence proves that it is ripe for the picking as far as ridiculing is concerned. Its followers, beliefs and practises are all absurd, and if it weren't for the fact that they are so dangerous and destructive, their lifestyle would make for a great Monty Python script.

    Cheeses - not always the reverent one.

  • Watchtower-Free
  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Well I have a different perspective, when I post I try to refer to them as WT, instead of the BOrg. I think it could put of some lurkers who are doubting, it may rienforce their indoctrination. What does any one think?

    Kate xx

  • nonjwspouse
    nonjwspouse

    From the writiings I have read in my reaserch of the WT, and the videos I have seen of the talks, it seems the WT has absolutly NO problem ridiculing other religions and other people, so I would say no, it is not wrong to return the "favor".

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    @ Kate...

    If a person is questioning or ready to leave WT and they are here, I doubt whether using "WT" vs. "Borg" will make any difference. If it does, I don't think they would be here in the first place.

    At least JWNers aren't calling anyone "mentally diseased". We do have our standards.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit