[jmcqk6]

I believe Hitchens point on this is taken directly from the bible. There is no biblical basis for your description of heaven. If you read Revelations, though, heaven is described exactly the way Hitchens described it.

To put it another way, I think when Hitchens calls it "the christian conception" of heaven, it wasn't a description of what certain christians believe, but of the biblical description.

[msg]

If you read Revelation and take only one layer of meaning from it, you didn't really read Revelation.

I find myself writing the ridiculous sentence that Hitchens perhaps took a religious prose poem/vision/prophecy/allegory/history too literally.

I understand that he had an axe to grind. But he hasn't done justice to the thing he argued against.

[super_mario]

North Korea-esque is exactly how heaven has been depicted by bloody people who invented Jesus and Chrisitanity i.e. the Catholic church for 2000 years now.

Even in the Catholic mass, there is a point at which priest announces: "And so, with all the choirs of angels in heaven we proclaim your glory and join in their unending hymn of praise" at which "Holy" is sung.

This is in direct reference to the book of revelation where it is depicted exactly as such, unending praise to god.

And by the way, any meaning you take from revelation is really up to you. The book is a rambling by a deluded madman.

[grandalf]

Based on your comment, you clearly don't understand how awesome North Korea is.

[olavk]

I think Hitchens is arguing against what people actually believe. Christians believe in heaven based (among other things) on Revelation.

[msg]

But obviously Christians don't believe that heaven is like North Korea or the Movementarians. They see it quite differently from the inside.

I take Hitchens as trying to find a common ground for argument by appealing directly to the text. So it is on point if his interpretation of the text does not do it justice, especially if the Christians interpret it differently in a way that is more internally consistent.

[jtheory]

That's not obvious at all.

The problem is that no one seems to have an idea of heaven that -- if it were actually REALIZED (vs staying as an abstract idea) -- would be tolerable for any length of time by human beings. We have to assume that people are transformed into something that deals well with eternity, for example... but we never even talked about it at that depth.

I was raised Catholic by two still-seriously-believing parents, I should mention, so I have some idea of what some Christians think heaven is like. It's a vague mush of conflicting ideas.

And that's just fine, because no one wants to think about it deeply; that's not the point. It's just for saying "well, your Nana is in Heaven now, and she's very, very happy there". It's whatever it needs to be for Nana to be very, very happy.

If she's reunited with both husbands and her lover from the late 1950s as well, presumably none of them will have drinking problems or anger-management issues anymore, and they'll all get along, and be very, very happy, and also the baby that died will be there. Also very, very happy.

But again, this is already miles further than anyone delves into it. It was just "well, God will be there, and it's just amazing to be in His presence; end of story."