Hidden Doctrines

by jhine 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OneEyedJoe
    l am an Anglican , a member of the Church of England . What do you consider are the offensive doctrines of my faith group ? Or Buddhism ? The reason that l find this statement offensive is because when JWs talk to people at front doors , on carts etc they do gloss over much of the stuff that would cause someone to cut and run , and will actually lie ( Theocratic Warfare ) if asked about the more embarrassing stuff . To say that all religions do this implies that l .as a member of a faith group , do the same . Neither l , nor anyone l know would do this . As main stream faith groups make up the biggest percentage of Christians in the world that is tarring a lot of people with the JW brush . The nasty stuff like the Crusades and the religious intolerance of the Tudors is taught in schools and is widely known about .

    I'm going to talk more in terms of moral disgust than offense, due to the modern connotations of claiming something to be offensive. I find the doctrine that my eternal fate depends on my belief in things on bad (or no) evidence to be disgusting. The doctrine of infinite punishment for the offense(s) of a finite lifetime is disgusting. The implications of a supposed omnibenevolent, omnipotent being existing at the same time as as a billion people suffer in poverty make that being morally disgusting, so the doctrine that insists that I have love for such a being and worship this being is disgusting. The endorsement of a book that itself endorses slavery is disgusting. I could go on and on.

    None of these things are openly advertised by adherents to christianity, but they're aspects of all christianity. You're moving the goal posts here in saying that the quote you began the thread with paints christians as liars or deliberately hiding objectionable doctrine. It simply said that these things are not readily volunteered by the religious, which I think is invariably true. In many cases this comes out of people just being intellectually lazy and not actually looking at what objectionable things exist in their religion. In others it comes from a discomfort at the facts and resultant avoidance (which, I guess is just another form of intellectual laziness).

    On Buddhism, I don't know enough about it to say for sure that there's anything inherently disgusting about the doctrine, but I do know that the concept of kharmic rebirth does, in certain practices, result in discouraging providing help to the less fortunate based on the assumption that they're being punished for sins in their past lives. That's morally reprehensible. From what I know about Buddhism, this is not a very good interpretation of the spirit of the religion, but it nevertheless occurs.

    But anyway, lets put your claim to the test. Why do you continue to endorse the bible when it endorses the owning of other humans as slaves? I'd like to see someone answer that question without either lying (or being deceptive) or indicting themselves as morally reprehensible.

  • Diogenesister

    I think one issue with Christianity is, the things Jesus said and did, are the antithesis of the old testament themes. Also, some of the writings attributed to Paul contains objectionable ideas ( I appreciate academics believe a lot of the worst mysogeny was added later and not written by Paul).

    If the Christians used only the sayings of Jesus there is very little any one could find fault in. So I guess it's some of the Old testament stories and morality tales that a new convert would find objectionable, and may not be aware of.

  • EverApostate

    You walk into a car Dealer. The sales person would only try to turn all your attention to their cars plusses and not the fatal sticky pedal, Engine fire and Airbag Issues they had in the past.

    Religious proselytism is nothing different.

  • OneEyedJoe
    If the Christians used only the sayings of Jesus there is very little any one could find fault in. So I guess it's some of the Old testament stories and morality tales that a new convert would find objectionable, and may not be aware of.

    Lol oh do go on, then.

    I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
    He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
    Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    Woohoo! Thoughtcrime!

    And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words ... It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

    Certainly didn't have a very kind view toward people like me that are averse to believing things without evidence on the basis of authority alone.

    God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

    Death penalty for those practicing free speech!

    He that is not with me is against me.

    Gotta love his dichotomous thinking!

    It goes on and on. Just because Jesus said some things that were considerably better than the barbaric nonsense in the old testament doesn't mean he was all good, or would even be considered good in modern times.

  • EverApostate

    OneEyedJoe, Please add this to your list

    Luke 19: 27.And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’” 28. After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.…
  • Pete Zahut
    Pete Zahut

    I don't know about intentionally hidden doctrine but It seems to me that unlike the JW's, other religious groups wouldn't disown you or treat you as if you are dammed to destruction at Armageddon because you disagreed with a certain doctrine once you discovered it or understood it better. As far as I can see, they don't intervene in a persons relationship with god the way JW's do.

    I can't imagine the leaders of any other religious group coming to the hospital to make sure one of their members didn't take a blood transfusion or reporting them after spotting them coming out of an R rated movie for example.

  • jhine

    Firstly , spot on Pete Zahut .

    Secondly , OneEyedJoe l am not trying to defend the Bible , that is not the purpose of the post . Now you are moving the goal posts . l am asking what are the hidden doctrines of all religions that are kept hidden according to the quote . You have given a list of the things that you find morally disgusting , how do you know about these things if they are " hidden " . That is at the heart of my post .


  • nonjwspouse

    This is not exactly hidden, or at least I don't think it is. My niece and her family are Independent Baptist. They follow strict rules that I have seen broaden ( or sometimes change) with the pastor's decisions on certain things. For all important, and even not so important decisions they will ask their pastor what to do and take his word as "law". The girls in her family took piano lessons, then suddenly quit, because music was somehow considered biblically "bad" or "dangerous". Same with dancing. So I think with this group it is more of a surprise to everyone, but they are mind trained to think they always knew it was bad, but just recognized the need to stop when the pastor would point it out

    Even some years ago they went with their three children to Disney world with us. Now, Disney is a no no. No more little princess dresses they so loved dressing up in.

    Watching cartoons with a dinosaur in it is considered bad, since they are strict young earth creationists and dinosaurs don't "fit".

    Their daughters have been raised not to want a leadership or powerful career in the working world. They are taught they have a roles in this world as good wives and mothers, period.

    The doctrine is expansive, strict, and it changes with the pastor's beliefs. Quite a scary cult in my opinion. It's also quite a strange mix as we get together with the JW grandmother, and her father ( my mother in law and brother in law) on a weekly basis. Thankfully, none of them talk doctrine at all when we are together. If they did it would be a nightmare.

  • Vanderhoven7

    I think there is often some measure of nondisclosure in churches with a history of violence or sexual misconduct.

  • OneEyedJoe

    They're not "hidden." That was never the claim. Let's look at the quote from your original post again:

    Religions do not volunteer their most offensive doctrines to newcomers

    As I said, you're moving the goalposts - these are offensive, morally reprehensible doctrines that are not volunteered to newcomers. You might hear an occasional intellectually dishonest, fallacy laden sermon trying to explain away a natural disaster in order to somehow make it consistent with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god that is interested in humans because adherents need an excuse to keep believing in the face of such powerful disconfirming evidence. Or maybe there'll be a sermon loudly proclaiming the hellfire that the unconverted will suffer for their failure to be convinced of the existence of god based on appeals to authority. But if someone comes to a church for the first time and asks the preacher what the doctrine is, that's hardly what he'll open with.

    You're tacitly defending the bible as that is what your religion claims to be based upon. Unless, I've misunderstood and part of anglican doctrine is that the bible has nothing to do with god. Please, educate me.

    You have given a list of the things that you find morally disgusting , how do you know about these things if they are " hidden " . That is at the heart of my post

    Then the heart of your post is the combination of the no true scottsman fallacy and equivocation on the original quote, changing it from "not volunteered" to "hidden." If you're going to claim that doctrine isn't hidden because I know about it, then it will be impossible for me to dispute your claim even in principle. But fine, I know about these "hidden" doctrines of the bible because I was a christian for 28 years and they, among many, many others, troubled me for a great deal of that time. None of these things were volunteered to me. At best, they were hinted at by people making excuses for them. I had to go and find out on my own what people were making excuses for, only to find out that the excuses were hardly satisfactory.

    In the end, I don't expect I'll ever change the mind of the self-deluded. I just think it's beneficial for the world if poor reasoning and overwrought claims of victimhood get pointed out for what they are. I don't know the exact context of the quote that caused you to start this thread, but while it is possible that it's a bit of a sweeping generalization, it certainly applies to your faith. Your offense at the suggestion that your denomination contains objectionable doctrine that is not volunteered to newcomers is not an argument against the truth of that suggestion.

Share this