Hellbound is a movie that was released this year that promises to “push your buttons” as it deals with various theological thoughts on Hell.  I disagree with some of the ideas from director Kevin Miller, but it does make you think.

Have you seen this?

This is the teaser trailer for “Hellbound?” (www.hellboundthemovie.com), a feature-length documentary that takes an in-depth look at today’s highly contentious debate over the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment. Does hell really exist, and if so, what factors determine who ends up there? Written and directed by Kevin Miller (“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” “Sex+Money,” “spOILed” and “With God On Our Side”), “Hellbound?” features interviews with an eclectic group of high profile authors, theologians, pastors, social commentators, musicians, exorcists and individuals who claim to have experienced the fires of hell firsthand. The film will hit theaters across North America in September 2012 through a combination of major metropolitan area theatrical runs and special event screenings.


Filed under Bible, Christianity, Religion

12 responses to “Hellbound

  1. Sis

    I haven’t seen it, I haven’t even seen it available at the theaters. I haven’t read any of Kevin Miller’s books either to know if I disagree with his positions. Just by guessing, it looks a little more like it’s supposed to make people mad at God than it is to bring people to God, they think, “what kind of awful, mean God would send people to Hell?”, when in reality, Hell is only a place without God, so if they don’t want God, they are getting exactly what they want, and that would make Him a kind God, even if He is letting them choose poorly.

  2. “reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible”

    It’s ok tildeb. We will not hold the fact that you cannot observe heaven or comprehend it against you.

    • Well, I will not hold the fact that you can’t observe the Flying Spaghetti Monster or comprehend his Noodliness against you.

      The question really is, how you two abuse words like ‘reality’ and ‘fact’ and not blush out of sheer embarrassment? What you are trying to do is transparently dishonest: use words that denote aspects of reliability and accessibility utterly missing from your faith claims to which you cavalierly attach them.

      • I do not see how we are abusing the terms when God is a reality to us. We have experienced God in a way that we have deemed to offer enough proof of an existence to us. I started out as an atheist and was not raised in an active Christian family, so I did not just roll over and accept God because that was tradition.

        This year, scientist announced that they think they found the Higgs boson particle. This same particle was suggested to exist in 1964 by scientist and is considered an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. Now despite the fact that this particle may have been finally detected in June, it is considered an elementary particle. It has not been seen or proven to exist, but scientist chase after it none the less. So what is the reality about this particle? Does the particle truly exist despite no proof of its existence other than some people’s observations and feelings? As scientist chase this particle and find ways to help prove it, how is it different than religion?

        To you, I believe and hope that God exists. To me, these scientists believe and hope this particle exists.

        As scientist look at nature and the environment around us and attempt to explain it in concepts that they can understand and prove in ways that they develop, is the scary part that I do not need that same level of control over my belief in God? I cannot prove I love my wife, so should I discount my feelings toward her as not being true?

      • Well done, Xander: you have managed to bring at least three standard canards into the topic!

        When we speak of a fact, what are we talking about? Are we talking about particular beliefs a person has? Are we talking only about what someone can see? Is a ‘fact’ really nothing more than a relative and subjective term?

        Come on.

        These are silly and heavily restrained definitions. The term usually denotes something that is the case, has occurred, and is subject to verifiability (what I like to relate to for phenomena that is true for everyone everywhere all the time).

        You want to define reality in similar silly and restrained fashion, something subjective and relative to the individual rather than the accepted definition as what actually is… for everyone everywhere all the time.

        And you do this to use terms that are contrary to what you are actually saying, as if your faith-based beliefs are not imaginary and subject relative beliefs but verifiable representatives of what is. You use the excuse that your experiences are experiences of god without any means or mechanism to link what you merely assert is true, assert is factual, assert as reality, with what you subjectively and relatively call ‘god’ and try to pass it off as objective fact of an independent reality by the language you have selected. This is dishonest because you cannot verify your experience was one of god, and your experience is not true for everyone everywhere all the time. Although I do not doubt you have had transformative experiences, I sincerely doubt your assertion that they were of an interventionist, creative agency that exists. You believe they were and that’s fine. But don’t put lipstick and a dress on a pig and pretend it is no longer a pig because you assert it isn’t. Your assertions are your own and not an accurate reflection of what is fact and reality independent of your beliefs; in fact and reality your claims owe their entire existence to you alone.

        The Higgs boson is not comparable. After all, why do you think they tried for so long to verify it?

        And the emotional attachment you feel to your wife is not evidence for an independent bubble object called ‘love’ any more than your experiences attributed to what you believe is compelling evidence for an independent creative interventionist agency you call god.

  3. “These are silly and heavily restrained definitions. The term usually denotes something that is the case, has occurred, and is subject to verifiability (what I like to relate to for phenomena that is true for everyone everywhere all the time).”

    1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
    2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
    3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
    4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
    5. Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

    How do you verify that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence as you did not see it for yourself and have to rely on the testimonies of others? We know the Holocaust happened even though we did not see the acts actually occur. We take the word of the people who experienced it and despite the fact that others deny the events to have occurred, we take it as truth. In another decade or so, there will no longer be any living witnesses so we must take what was documented as our proof.

    What this becomes then, is that you doubt the testimony of others who have experienced things that you have not as you are unable to duplicate them. I get that and I am ok with you doubting my claims. I understand what it is like to be on the outside and looking for proof of the claims being made. The lack of proof does not change the facts of my experiences.

    • Xander, come on. A good place to start is to look at the Declaration to verify Hancock’s signature. I’ve been to Auschwitz, I’ve seen records, I’ve seen tattoos, I’ve seen pictures, I’ve listened to first hand accounts, I’ve read first hand accounts, and all align to verify the historical record. Verification does not reside in only testimonials but must comport with all the facts. What you are trying to do is make equivalent facts with your assertions. Again, I don’t doubt your experiences; I doubt your attributions you’ve assigned to them because they do not comport with the facts of how reality operates but stand contrary to and in conflict with the reality we share. This is a compelling reason for me to doubt the veracity of your attributions.

      • Anonymous

        So, in other words, you do not doubt that our experiences are real, but you do not agree with the explanations we give to those experiences because they do not fit into the definition of reality that you are familiar and comfortable with?

      • Anonymous, I do not doubt you’ve had these experiences but I do doubt the cause to which you (and many others) have attributed them. Please note that I doubt, not because they stand contrary to my definition of reality but, because this explanation stands contrary to how the reality we share reliably and consistently operates. This is not a trivial difference.

        The reality we share is known to us – independent of our individual beliefs about it – because it is upon this shared model of how reality operates that we build and operate technologies, therapies, and applications that work. Not only do they work reliably and consistently well, they do so for everyone everywhere all the time. In other words, the knowledge is independent of the beliefs I – or you – may have about them and thus are verifiable by reality. This is important because it reveals that reality operates the same for everyone everywhere all the time and we can use this to our advantage to build them. If reality did not operate this way, then your attribution would gain impetus. But it doesn’t; and this is why prayers don’t work to replace lost limbs, cellular decay and death cannot be reversed, snake bites release venom that really does affect biological chemistry, and so on. Our wishes and our attributions are no sufficient to determine reality; for that we need verification from reality to describe reality. What you want to do is replace reality’s role as arbiter of claims made about it with faith-based beliefs. If we care about what’s true, then we have o try as best we can to remove the power we allot to our prejudices, biases, and ‘worldviews’ and let reality do its job of verifying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s