Disturbing Passages in Holy Books

Post Reply New Topic

Adult content.






I recently found out that JW married couples are no longer forbidden from having oral and anal sex. Apparently, it was a disfellowshipping offense until January. For some reason, I thought that stopped being a thing quite some time ago. The following is the last article they had about it until this year. The first paragraph covers the situation when a JW is married to a nonbeliever. What it’s implying here is utterly grotesque.

1 Peter 3:1, which is a scripture they LOVE and cite often, says: “Wives, in the same way, be subject to your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct,” so the implication here is that JW women should engage in sex acts they don’t want if their nonbelieving spouse wants it. Verse 7 is advice for JW husbands of nonbelieving wives: “Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman—though the weaker vessel, they are joint heirs of the gracious gift of life—so that nothing may hinder your prayers.”

The next paragraph in the Watchtower concerns JW couples:
Apparently, husband and wives in the past felt guilty for engaging in the behavior which led to confessions and, sometimes, disfellowshipping/shunning.

In articles on this topic, they often took what Paul says at Romans 1:26-27 out of context and argued that only PIV sex is acceptable to God. JWs reading the article would’ve likely had these verses in mind because they were so commonly used in their publications and at church and still are when they are trying to uphold/legitimize their homophobia.

At any rate, here’s what they’re saying now:
Now it’s a “conscience matter” which means that a lot still won’t do it for fear of displeasing Jehover, but those who do won’t be disciplined for it. It’s all so silly.

Speaking of silly, here’s what the January 2025 Watchtower has to say about domestic violence:
Yet again, domestic violence is treated as a sin and not a dangerous crime. Their advice would likely only serve to keep a spouse in a dangerous situation while he or she hopes that the childlike advice will change their partner’s behavior.

The paragraph only talks about physical and verbal abuse. A short paragraph on “sexually demeaning behavior” was included earlier in the article, but the Watchtower seems to view it as a much smaller issue because the higher ups, including those in the writing department and governing body, are f*****g morons.

What Jesus says in the following verses freaked me out when I was a kid.

I started having doubts and was critical of God from the time I was 5 or 6, so I often wondered if I committed the unforgivable sin as I was growing up. My church connected this passage with their notion of apostasy, so I am apparently irredeemable.

Out of all the horrible things people can do, it’s a strange thing for Jesus or whomever was responsible for this passage to be so concerned about. The most heinous crimes are forgivable but blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is just going too far.

Yes it does look rather a bizarre thing to put on the top of the tree. Looking around, though, it seems he aimed it at the rabbis who had just said his miracles were satanically-powered rather than HS-powered. Doesn't seem to me that they were exactly blowing raspberries at the HS. They were just attributing his miracles to something else. So is the "beware false prophets" thing also unforgivable blasphemy? The ancients really get up my nose sometimes with their muddled thinking.

It sort of seems like Jesus was trying to shut down scrutiny and debate here and to put himself/the Holy Spirit above criticism, not that Jesus likely ever said anything remotely close to that since Mark was apparently written around 70 AD. I think the writer may have had a broader, propagandistic motivation in mind as far as this passage goes or maybe not. I’m not sure.

Content Warning: Child Physical Abuse

The Use of Corporal Punishment on Children According to the Bible and the Watchtower

Corporal punishment - often with belts and sometimes with hands, wooden spoons (one or two of which were broken on me), paddles, etc. - is something I frequently experienced and observed as a kid. (Of course, some Christian fundamentalists use rods to discipline abuse their children due to the scriptures quoted below.) It never sat well with me and felt wrong. Anyway, I wanted to explore the Bible and my former religion’s views on this topic. It’s a huge topic, so I’m only scratching the surface as far as the Watchtower is concerned. Not only are there many more articles addressing this form of discipline, but I grew up hearing corporal punishment being advocated for in sermons. As a child, they were always difficult to sit through. First, here are some scriptures that support the use of physical punishment. (Others that could be thought to support the practice will be cited as I proceed through the discussion of the Watchtower. Several that demand or demonstrate violent capital punishment on children are quoted at the bottom of this post):

Interestingly, the same Hebrew word for “rod” (shebet) is used at Exodus 21:20-21:None of the scriptures in the Bible set limits on the severity or give a minimum or maximum age. Members of my former religion most often utilized corporal punishment from early toddlerhood until puberty although there were exceptions either way. My last experience with it was when I was 12 or 13. My mom slapped me in the face for saying a swear word. Since I had braces at the time, it made my mouth bleed. To be perfectly fair, my mom felt bad about it to the point that I needed to comfort and reassure her. In her mind, that episode, unlike other instances of harsh physical punishments she and my dad doled out, crossed the line. She never hit me again.

In the following quotes from the Watchtower, I’ll link scriptures unless they are quoted above. First, here’s what the JW reference book Insight on the Scriptures, published in 1988, has to say about using the rod:The quoted scripture in Hebrews reminds me of a previous post in this thread concerning a passage in the book of Deuteronomy that promotes punishing adults by flogging.

They seem to be trying to get parents to act against their own loving inclination here:Off-topic, toxic BS about marriage from the same Watchtower:


The following article cites the child psychologist Dr. Spock. When I was growing up, they often maligned him in their publications and sermons when the topic of corporal punishment came up.Their claims about Dr. Spock are unfounded and based on misquotes. Here’s some things he actually said:At any rate, generations of JWs have been trained to be wary of professionals, like child psychologists. If experts in any field say something that conflicts with their understanding of the Bible, they are trained to reject it. I’m not saying experts will always be right, but basing one’s views about rightness on the Bible itself, rather than on valid research, is the height of absurdity.

Moving on from the topic of child psychologists, here’s a disturbing passage from the June 1, 1980 Watchtower:


My family used to laugh over a similar story involving me being carried to the back in church for a spanking because I wasn’t being still and quiet during an exceedingly boring sermon. I was preschool-aged at the time. Anyway, as I was being dragged back, I screamed: “Don’t beat me! Don’t beat me!” My family claimed I was exaggerating and that a hard spanking wasn’t that bad. They also claimed to be against spanking in anger or to the point where it left a mark, but they often did both. Sometimes I’d have welts after being beaten with a belt. Anyway, over the years, I eventually got pissed off enough from repeatedly hearing my family relay this charming story at family get togethers that, on one occasion, I cut through their merriment with a deadpan delivery of the question: “Why is that funny?” They no longer bring it up when I’m around, not that I’m around most of them anymore. a**holes.

From the 1978 book Making Your Family Life Happy:In practice, most parents were quick to use corporal punishment because it takes less effort and is supported by scripture. Most JW parents were not (and still aren’t) well-educated since education was (and still is) discouraged, so it wasn’t at all uncommon for parents to expect behavior that was beyond a kid’s developmental level - expecting toddlers and preschoolers to sit still in church was a big one.

To be fair, the organization has lightened up on the use of corporal punishment in recent decades, likely due to legal concerns and repercussions which were present when I was a kid. People would often complain, even from the platform at church, about fears related to CPS. This stuff led to a culture of silence from kids who were worried they’d be “taken away.” At any rate, even though the Bible is clearly talking about a literal rod, the JW leadership are now pushing the idea that God was speaking figuratively. If he was speaking figuratively, he was apparently too stupid to realize that such scriptures would lead to hurt and traumatized children.

The Watchtower isn’t forbidding corporal punishment, admitting they were wrong in the past, or removing harmful articles from their website, but they are lightening the message in more recent articles/publications. Still, the damage has been done. Physical abuse is still being promoted in individual congregations by elders who’ve been in the organization for decades. It’s generational, religious physical abuse. ^ That sounds ominous.

The following scriptures advocate executing disobedient children: Here’s what the publication Insight on the Scriptures says about these passages:The episode of Elisha and the she-bears is an example of God using capital punishment on naughty children: Clearly, there are quite a few scriptures that support physical punishment in the Bible, so it’s not surprising that physical abuse is a widespread problem in many fundamentalist communities. I cited the Watchtower because that’s the organization I’m the most familiar with and was the most affected by, but there are communities that are much worse.

The following video is about Debi and Michael Pearl who are Christian fundamentalists (independent Baptists) best known for the book To Train Up a Child which is a notorious manual promoting child physical abuse. The book is still available for purchase on Amazon. Anyway, the part about children starts at 27 minutes in although the first half pertaining to gender roles is also quite interesting and grotesque:



Short, disturbing video featuring the Pearls:

^ 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
— 2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV

Doesn't sound like much at first glance, but the insinuations therein bother me. Swallow them and you're bound to their repressive sexual dogma. Clever guilt-tripping traps like that are a common theme in scripture. Weird thing is, nobody even knows who wrote the Timothy epistles. Maybe it's not too wise to drink in moral guidance from a stranger, especially when the propaganda devices are so palpable. Why can't scripture just speak plainly and leave it to the individual to appraise it?

There is never justification for abuse or enslaving another person.

All religions seek to control others for their own gain. Is it not just a form of legal mafia?

I'd argue the mafia are much less controlling over one's day-to-day affairs, not to mention as long as you pay them they don't expect you to attend Mob once a week.

I had to attend 3 times per week and preach one other day. What a waste of time! Then I was supposed to indoctrinate myself at home with reading the Bible (daily) and religious publications. I was more sporadic with that for the most part although I went through phases/years where I tried really hard.

When I was somewhere in my teens, I made myself read a few chapters of the Bible before getting to whatever book I was reading for pleasure. That was an interesting experience because I kept on catching myself with the impure thought that whatever piece of literature I was reading was typically more enjoyable AND more beneficial. I hadn’t intended on comparing the Bible to other works. It just happened naturally with that particular goal I set for myself. Eventually, I stopped, but I still read through the Bible on my own at least a couple times. We worked our way through it in church, too, but the less savory passages were glossed over OR they employed unconvincing, even absurd, apologetics.

I do want to say that portions of the Bible are quite good from a literary standpoint, but overall, I’d much rather read so many other things.

lol True.

This thread is in need of a talking donkey.

If you went to get right to it, skip to the 4th quote. Otherwise, here’s some background info.

The king of Moab, Bakar, is feeling threatened because there’s so many Israelites around. His brilliant idea is outlined in the following passage. Basically, he wants to summon a dude named Balaam to curse the Israelites.

Balaam talks to God about it, and God forbids him from cursing them.
The officials pester Balaam some more and God demonstrates his wishy-washiness in the next passage by saying that Balaam can go if he’s obedient.
This brings us directly to the silly story with the donkey. God is pissed off from the outset even though he already told Balaam he could go.It’s a mildly engaging fable, but when people take it as the literal word of God, as some do, it raises obvious ethical concerns.

Not to mention concerns about their sanity.

I think I’ve known so many normal people who believe utterly bizarre things due to their belief system that I don’t even see it as a sanity issue most of the time. A talking donkey doesn’t seem too far out of the norm when large groups of people believe in demons, exorcisms, miracles, and all sorts of other nonsense.

Ah well, the Church of England avoids most of the mumbo-jumbo, apart from that coming back from the dead thing, and I think some of them feel it's OK to take even that as a metaphor.

I've got a friend in Arkansas who honestly thinks a faith healer has cured his blood cancer. But if he's got any sense (which I think he has), he won't be stopping his medical treatments. Apparently the faith healers often wisely tell their "patients" not to stop that. Interesting admission of the unreliability of what they do, compared to the scriptural tales of healing which are always totally profound and complete.