[Bobbye]

DOES HELL EXIST?

The Bible speaks more of Hell than of Heaven. Jesus said it and that settles it!

What think ye?
Bobbye

[Morganite]

DOES HELL EXIST?

The Bible speaks more of Hell than of Heaven. Jesus said it and that settles it!

What think ye?
Bobbye

"Hell" makes its first appearance in the bible in Dt 32.22. In Hebrew, it is sh'owl {sheh-ole'} or shol {sheh-ole'}

Like all Hebrew nouns it has a wide semantic range and the exact meaning is determined by the context.

Variously, it is used to refer to, sheol, the underworld, the grave, the pit, the underworld.

Sheol in the OT is the designation for the abode of the dead,referred also as, "place of no return" (after the babylonians), The wicked are said to be sent there as a punishment after judgement, and the righteous are promised that they will not be abandoned to it.

What the OT does not say, apart from the 'underworld' hint, is precisely where or exactly what it is.

It is spoken of as a place of sorrow: (2 Samuel 22:6)
The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;

It was spoken of as being in the opposite direction to heaven: (Job 11:8)
It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

The 'wicked' will be sent there, as well as 'the nations' that forget God. (Psalms 9:17)
The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.

Hell is considered a place of temporary punishment or distress, for David exclaims: (Psalms 16:10) For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; (Psalms 116:3-4) The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.

Jonah uses the idea of hell as an analogy for his ordeal inide the belly of the great fish: (Jonah 2:2) And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, [and] thou heardest my voice.

Jesus uses the word 'geennn' or 'gehenna,' which is the Valley of the Hinnom, a wide vale that runs down the western edge of the holy city and then sweeps around the south side, outside the city walls. It was an ideal simile for an unpleasant place, because it was the city dump, and animal corpses, dung, and trash fires made the smell permanently offensive. (Matthew 5:22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus uses a different term - Hades. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hades, or Pluto, was the god of the lower regions in Greek mythology, and was adopted by Jews as part of the Hellenization that swept the Near East after Alexander's conquest. It also referred to Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead, and eventually came to mean the grave, and death itself.

In 2 Peter 2:4, a different word is used to convey a similar meaning: tartaroo {tar-tar-o'-o}, which, although a verb, meant the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds. It answers to Gehenna of the Jews, the verb serving in its meanings: to thrust down to Tartarus, or to hold captive in Tartarus.

There is a developmentevident in the idea of what hell was, owing more to the Greek influence than to biblical doctrine, which is not very forthcoming about hell.

Jesus came into the world to ransom it. Through his atonement we were bought from death and hell. Death and hell were paid—paid in full—and Christ was the only one who could pay that debt.

What did Paul mean when he said we were "bought with a price?" What does Jesus mean when he calls himself our "Redeemer?" If we were not bought, if we were not ransomed by Jesus Christ, then we would be still in our sins, still subject to death and hell.

Quite generally the idea has been taught that man is either to be saved in the kingdom of God or cast into hell. He is either in the presence of God, or else in the presence of the devil.

No other place is provided where a man could go who is unworthy of the presence of the Lord and yet not worthy of the condemnation with Lucifer.

Is such a thought consistent? With serious reflection, can we believe that our Almighty God who is all-wise and just, has arranged salvation and damnation on any such foundation as this?

In his Divine Comedy, Dante depicts the doctrine of damnation for unfortunate souls who died without a knowledge of Christ, as that doctrine was taught in the 13th century. According to the story, Dante is lost in the woods where he is met by the Roman poet, Virgil, who promises to show him the punishment of hell and purgatory, and later, he is to have a view of paradise.

He follows the Roman poet through hell and later into Limbo, which (according to the story) is the first circle of hell. Here are confined the souls of those who lived virtuous and honorable lives, but because they were not baptized, these souls merit punishment and are denied forever the blessings of salvation.

As Dante looks upon these miserable souls in the upper stratum of hell, and sees, as the story says, "Many and vast, Of men, women and infants," he marvels. His guide asks the question, "Inquirest thou not what spirits Are those which thou beholdest?"

Dante, showing a desire to know, the guide continues: "I would thou know, that these of sin Were blameless; and if aught they merited, It profits not, since baptism was not theirs, The portal of thy faith. If they before The Gospel lived, they served not God aright; And among them such am I. For these defects, And for no other evil, we are lost; Only so far afflicted that we live Desiring without hope."

In answer to the earnest inquiry of his mortal guest, who desires to know if any thus punished ever had the privilege of coming forth from this sad condition of torment, that is, escaping from Hell, the spirit-poet declares that the righteous, who had known God from our first parents down to the time of Christ, have been "to bliss exalted," but of these unfortunates who never heard of Christ, he says, "Be thou assured, no spirit of human kind was ever saved."

Dante was not the author of this unfortunate doctrine. What a shame it is that this same awful doctrine has come resounding down from that distant day, and has been made to repeat its terrible threat of torment in the ears of earnest souls who have sought the salvation of loved ones who have gone before.

I do not believe that hell is a place where the wicked are being burned forever, and from which there is no escape, and, taken all in all, I do not believe that the Bile teaches otherwise.



MORGANITE

:)

[MaggieB]

My belief of which I garnered from the Word of God is that "hell" is a place of "eternal" punishment and sorrow, it is real.

In the OT, Psalm 49:10-15 hints of hell.

Matthew 5:21-30 and Romans 8:1-16 tells us to avoid it.

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers

2 Thessalonians !:3-12, Jude 5-13, and revelation 20:11-14 speaks of punishment in hell.

Jude 17-23 speaks of keeping others away from hell.

Hell is real!!

Bless you,
MaggieB

[chrisl]

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers

This view is certainly understandable if one reads the King James Version (KJV). Yet this position is not supported by the account in Acts 2:27-31 which tells us Jesus was in hell at one point, and he was certainly not an evildoer!

Have you noticed that the KJV uses "hell" in these and other scriptures but many modern translations (including, oddly enough, the New King James Version) use "hades" or "the grave" instead? It is not surprising since many churches have moved away from the hellfire doctrine in the years since the KJV was produced, although many others still teach it.

I agree with Genesis 3:19, which tells us that death is a consequence of Adam's sin and it means a return to the earth from which we were made. Where were we before we had life? Nowhere. We simply did not exist--no consciousness, no thought, no being. That is also the condition of the dead and that is what the Bible means by "hades" in the NT and "sheol" in the OT. It is described at Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 and also by Jesus at John 11:11-14. Individuals in hades are unconscious, or "sleeping" as Jesus so lovingly explained, and their future hope is the resurrection, as Jesus demonstrated in the case of Lazarus.

Gehenna, which is also translated as "hell" in the KJV and other Bibles, is different. It represents the condition of death without hope of a resurrection. In effect, it is a judgment and condemnation. Readers should use discernment (and a good lexicon or concordance) when considering how "hades", "gehenna", "tartarus" and "sheol" are rendered in their Bibles. The differences are significant.

Revelation 20:14 is interesting because it shows that hell/hades itself will eventually "die" (ie, be destroyed forever) in "the second death" represented by the lake of fire. That shows that hell/hades and the lake of fire are not the same. It also means that death due to the sin of Adam will eventually cease. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:26.)

That's good news!

Chris

[chrisl]

If you're interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this topic, you may want to take a look at the series of articles on hell in the 15 July 2002 Watchtower magazine.

Chris

[phildebenham]

If you're interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this topic, you may want to take a look at the series of articles on hell in the 15 July 2002 Watchtower magazine.

Chris

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts...

Phil

[speedball1]

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I don't know who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.

[NeedKarma]

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I dunno who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.

[Morganite]

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts........

Phil

I thought about this for a moment or two before asking how anyone can possily know what all of anything believes. Do Jehovah's and Baptists, and Whatevers have machines that can read their minds? If a guy is sitting in a pew singing along with the hymnsheet how is it possible to know what reservations or innovations he holds in his mind?

On the other hand, what did Paul say? (Philippians 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Unless there were many different ands differing minds in Christ, to follow Him is to have the one mind whoever you are.

What else did he say? Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you.

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?




MORGANITE


:)

[phildebenham]

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I dunno who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.

Christianity, not a denomination or a sect, but Christianity itself, requires you to question what you are taught. When Paul taught the Bareans they were commended for searching the scriptures to see if the things Paul taught were true. The only "mind control" in true, biblical, Christianity, is the sincere seeking to have the "mind of Christ" in all matters. This, in itself, shows the need to be open to the teaching of the Word of God regardless of what one hears from teachers and preachers whoever they be. Skeptical analysis is exactly what the Bareans were commended for.

Many so-called "christian" groups do attempt control the beliefs of their adherants to the degree that adheants are not "allowed" to deviate from the groups teachings no matter what. Frank Sandford's "Holy Ghost and Us bible school" and "Shiloh" in Durham, Maine from the late 1800's to early 1900's is an outstanding example of this type of group (see "Fair, Clear, and Terrible" by Shirley Nelson.) Argueably the most prevelent group extant today to practice this type of "mind control" is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), but there are many such groups ("The House of Yahweh" in Abilene, Tx. For example) that are equally and even more controlling.

This is not how the Church of God ought to be, nor is it what the bible teaches. This type of controlling abuse occurs not only in psuedo-biblical cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the House of Yahweh, but also in some more doctrinally sound churches as well. A good book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Ronald M. Enroth (and it's sequel "Recovering from Churches that Abuse").

Now, you have stated also that we are told what to believe from the bible, and you are correct, we are. On the major tenents of Christianity the bible is very clear and we are taught, as Christians, to be of the same mind concerning these, and not to be mislead by those who teach contrary to the sound doctrine of the Word of God. I fail to see, however, that this is mind control. Christians, like myself, believe that God has given us His word through the bible. It is not mind control that we search it for truth and even test it to see whether it is true. Christianity is not meant to be a religion of blind faith. Indeed, we are called to come to Christ with our eyes wide open! We are called to study the scriptures and question our beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Christianity does not tell us to believe blindly, but to know what we believe and why.

Phil Debenham

[phildebenham]

I thought about this for a moment or two before asking how anyone can possily know what all of anything believes. Do Jehovah's and Baptists, and Whatevers have machines that can read their minds? If a guy is sitting in a pew singing along with the hymnsheet how is it possible to know what reservations or innovations he holds in his mind?

Neither Baptists nor Jehovah's Witnesses possess machines that can read minds. However, Jehovah's Witnesses (and many other pseudo-christian, non-christian, and even some christian groups) do, through their organizations, have the machinery to control what goes into the minds of its adherants. That is why ChrisL could answer this thread with "this is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe."

On the other hand, what did Paul say? (Philippians 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Unless there were many different ands differing minds in Christ, to follow Him is to have the one mind whoever you are.

Paul did indeed tell the Philippians "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." However, in the context of the passage we find that Paul was telling the Phillipians to have a humble attitude, as did Christ who "emptied Himself, taking the form of bond servant, being made in the likeness of men." You have taken the verse out of context.

What else did he say? Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you.

Here you quote 1 Cor. 1:10-11, but again you quote out of context. This passage speaks of spiritual pride, not individual understanding of scriptual doctrine. The divisions Paul speaks about regard those who claimed; "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and I of Christ." There ought not to be spiritual pride within the body of Christ. This, however, does not address the question at hand; that is does a specific group (in this instance the Jehovah's Witnesses) tell their adherants what they must believe regardless of scriptual teaching? Are their adherants allowed to challenge the groups stated beliefs? Are they allowed to think for themselves?

[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.

Be blessed,

Phil Debenham

[Morganite]

[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.

Be blessed,

Phil Debenham[/QUOTE]


For your further consideration on internal unity in the Church of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2
1 ¶ BE ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

Room for change? Maneuver? Write your own version?

When Paul said, 'let there be NO divisions among you,' he did not qualify it. "No divisions" gives no elbow room for shuffling around until we find a comfortable place. No divisions.

The quote you cannot find is MORGANITE 1.1. :)

Here is what Jesus promised ~ John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The all things that the Spirit of God will teach us, will he teach us all different things about the same gospel? Is God the author of confusion?

Ephesians 4:5 ~ One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Plain words. No room for elbow shuffling.

There is more ~ Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Unity of the faith?

Jesus again ~ John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Jesus prays that the believers will become one as he and hs father are one. Are we to believe that God and Jesus differ in doctrine in the slightest degree? Is one in Tony's corner and the other in yours, or do they agree firmly?

I repeat Paul's words. If we take them at face value, what do they signify?

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Out of context? Misunderstood?

Acts 2:42 And [the newly baptized] continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

You might have good reason to write as you do, but I cannot see them. I will take the Word of God as my instructor in what God expects from those who follow him.

What Jeus identified as the "Holy Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father," teaches all things; and brings to the remembrance of the Saints all the instructions of the Master. He guides into all truth, and as in all truth there is unity or harmony, so, it is not comprehensible that those filled by this "Spirit of Truth" will be directed, one towards one door, and another towards a different one.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.





MORGANITE

[phildebenham]

Morganite,

You and I do not disagree unless you consider the example that I gave concerning Tony's and my differing understandings of the doctrine of Eternal Security as a "division." My point is simply this: When Paul used the term division he was not speaking of such things as Tony and my disagreement. He was speaking of real division. The "I am better than you because..." divisions. As for our unity, we (Christians) are all in unity as part of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and Paul wants us to know that we should act like it.

That doesn't in any way take away the individuality of the believer. We are not asked to leave our brain behind when we become believers. Consequently we will come to different conclusions about the more obscure doctrines. Some will believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. Others will believe it to be mid-tribulational, or post-tribulational. Still others will believe that no rapture will occur at all. These are not divisions, but just differences in understanding which the Lord will correct in due time. If you believe differently concerning the rapture (and I use this as an example, not as a digretion from the topic), that does not divide us, does it? Are we not still brothers or sisters in Christ?

You have pointed out a bunch of scriptures which I will not comment upon (unless you wish me to). Yes, you took the previous ones out of context and that is never adviseable even if it makes a valid point. A text without the context is a proof-text. By using proof-texts we can make the bible teach anything we want it to teach. Consequently I will challenge anyone who answers me with scripture out of context (and I welcome anyone correcting me in like manner.)

You quoted; "Let God be true and every man a liar," and I couldn't agree more (even though you directed that at me.) I would remind you that when you use God's word out of context you change God's truth to fit yours.

Interestingly, my original question concerning the control of the WTBTS over its adherants was never answered. "Let God be true and every man a liar" strongly fits this situation, for if the bible says one thing and the WTBTS teaches another, Jehovah's Witnesses will believe the WTBTS every time. If they don't, they will find themselves in danger of disfellowship.

May the Logos guide your study,

Phil Debenham

[SSchultz0956]

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.

[hanabelle]

Thanks speedball1, You said everything that I have been trying to say in a nut shell! :D

[Morganite]

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.

There is a difference between brainwashing and indoctrinating.

Brainwashing is psychological mnaipulation to change a person;s mindset.

Indoctrination means teaching the doctrine of any church, sect, political party, etc.

Indoctrination is not sinister or harmful.

Brainwashing can be so, depending upon the circumstances.




MORGANITE



:)

[phildebenham]

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.

Since you do not mention who the "churches or institutions" are, I cannot comment. However, Morganite is correct that "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" are not synonymous.

[SSchultz0956]

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

Brainwash

V 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which I will not name because I have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.

[Morganite]

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

brainwash

v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.

Your example is too vague to be useful. If you can give further and better particulars so that it can be researched..

Dictionary definitions are always basic, even in a very good dictionary, but there are many other qualifying factors that need to be taken into account.




MORGANITE



:)

[phildebenham]

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

brainwash

v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.

Indoctrinate forcibly is far different that just indoctrinate. It is the word "forcibly" that makes it brainwashing. Without that word it is merely teaching.