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.