Irritating To The Believer

[Christian]

Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

Why is Islam a rapidly growing religion?

Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure.

Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?

 

[Beleth]

What are the odds that this specific religion be the most succesful?

1 / the number of religions.

The odds that, of all the religions, one of them is the most successful, is of course 1. There is nothing necessarily special about Christianity just because it happens to be in the #1 spot at this particular moment in time.

Remember, at one time there were only 12 Christians in the whole world. Did that make Christianity any less valid?

The truth is not determined by a popularity contest.

 

[triadboy]

Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire, the religion got a MAJOR boost in the "race" for the most popular religion.

 

[Bubbles]

As far as the question of why Christianity would be wildly successful and not some other religion, I think I would make an analogy to poker. Let us imagine that I shuffle a deck of cards and then deal myself five. I could pronounce the hand miraculous as the odds of my getting it were something like 1 in 2.6 million. However, as I was bound to get some combination of 5 cards and every combination is equally unlikely, some wildly unlikely outcome had to result. Some religion was boud to be wildly successful. Chrsitianity, among others, was. That by itself proves nothing.

As regards the 'Coercion, ignorance, and peer pressure" statement, I would assert that, to steal a phrase, Christianity ceased to be meek when it inheritd the Earth.

I do think that there is a general problem with trying to rationally explain arational things. Being rational is great when buying a car, but who in their right mind would want to be entirely rational about getting married? I think chossing a metaphysics / religious system is far more like falling in love that it is like making a purchase. I think any sports fan would understand me: who would rationally choose to chear for the Clippers? It's just something arational like falling in love.

Bikewer, if you want your questions to be addressed from a moderate to liberal Chrisitian perspective, I would be happy to. If you don't, I won't bog down the thread with it.

 

[Christian]

1 / the number of religions.

The odds that, of all the religions, one of them is the most successful, is of course 1. There is nothing necessarily special about Christianity just because it happens to be in the #1 spot at this particular moment in time.

But for most if it's existance it has been #1. To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

 

[Christian]

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire, the religion got a MAJOR boost in the "race" for the most popular religion.

Yes, we know this. From a purely materialistic view, we do find a string of events don't we.

Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

 

[Christian]

As far as the question of why Christianity would be wildly successful and not some other religion, I think I would make an analogy to poker. Let us imagine that I shuffle a deck of cards and then deal myself five. I could pronounce the hand miraculous as the odds of my getting it were something like 1 in 2.6 million. However, as I was bound to get some combination of 5 cards and every combination is equally unlikely, some wildly unlikely outcome had to result. Some religion was boud to be wildly successful. Chrsitianity, among others, was. That by itself proves nothing.

Oh, but this analogy is not fitting. Christianity has so many elements, a book, teachings, practices, etc. All these things influence future outcomes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But for most if it's existance it has been #1. To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

You might want to make that " western human history "...

And yes ' Force ' is a good choice of word, here..

 

[Tony]

But for most if it's existance it has been #1.

You'll have to show evidence of this.

To this day, it has been the most influential force in human history. And that is true today.

Again, you'll have to show evidence of this.

Isn't luck a very simplistic explanation?

No more than saying it's because the religion is true.

 

[Tony]

Why has that boost lasted for so long.

Are you really this stupid? Western Civ. is practically built on Rome, is it any mystery that the Roman cults would ALSO exist to this day?

Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

This doesn't make any sense.

 

[Christian]

No more than saying it's because the religion is true.

This is true, and please note that I have not said that it is true because it is #1. (attaching that position to me would be strawman)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Yes, we know this. From a purely materialistic view, we do find a string of events don't we.

Again, isn't this simplistic. Why has that boost lasted for so long. Why is it that other events in history not changed it been the most influential in history?

Not simplistic at all. Political considerations have ensured that for much of the last couple thousand years, monarchs and other leaders have had a vested interest in keeping Christianity as the predominant force in the world. Simply put, religion has usually had politics on it's side and Constantine's choice of Christianity ensured that Christianity would be the religion of choice for Europe, and since it was the main religion of Europe, when Europe colonized the new world, Christianity came with it.

Since Europe and subsequently the US have been the major powers in the world for much of history, it is only natural that the predominant religion of those powers would be extremely important in world affairs too.

All in all the growth and predominance of Christianity has much more to do with politics than the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

 

[Christian]

Are you really this stupid?

Let me ask you, do you believe that any person who is a Christian is stupid?

 

[Christian]

All in all the growth and predominance of Christianity has much more to do with politics than the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

Suppose we accep this as true, still that doesn't answer the question why would it be Christianity, why not Buddhism? Why not the countries that have a head start in civilization?

 

[Hexxenhammer]

I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

But you sure are implying it. You seem to ascribe some meaning or purpose to the current popularity of Christianity. To me that implies that either you think that it's popular because it's true, or it's popular because of divine intervention.

Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right.

 

[Christian]

But you sure are implying it. You seem to ascribe some meaning or purpose to the current popularity of Christianity. To me that implies that either you think that it's popular because it's true, or it's popular because of divine intervention.

This is how you understand it, but I don't think you should attack a position you believe the other person is implying. Isn't that a strawman?

Seems to me a christian can't believe that their religion would be where it is without some kind of divine intervention. After all, it started as a tiny little cult. If it wasn't true, it would have died out like so many other flash in the pan religions. It HAD to survive because it's right.

This would be a theory, one theory.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have said nothing about the correctness/incorrectness of its doctrine.

Suppose we accep this as true, still that doesn't answer the question why would it be Christianity, why not Buddhism? Why not the countries that have a head start in civilization?

you have not said anything about the correctnes of Christianity in so many words, but your question

Good question. And this is too: Why is it that Christianity is the most relevant and has had the most impact of the thousands of others that have ever existed?

when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true. If I am wrong and you were merely asking a rhetorical question, I apologize.

As for the question about Buddhism, it doesn't really have a lot to do with the age of the civilization as much as the agressive spreading of that civilization. Buddhism may well be the most powerful religion in China and China may well be an older civilization than Europe, but China has never been as aggressive about spreading that culture, through either force or trade. Early in their history, they had no interest in sharing their civilization with other cultures that they considered barbaric. Byt he time that attitude changed, we barbarians had eclipsed them in wealth and power. If that attitude had been different early on, we might well all be Buddhists.

This leads, by the way, to another factor in Christianity's spread. It demands (or has been interpreted to demand, anyway) aggresive proselytizing. Buddhism has never, so far as I know, been interpreted in such a way that demands it's adherents to convert others to it. Christianity has been. Combine this with the spread of western culture over the centuries and it owuld be mazing if Christianity WEREN'T such a major force in the world.

 

[Yahweh]

Ok, but some who holds a position like yours would say that most religions use coercion, ignorance and peer pressure? Why would Christianity take the lead?

It was either Christianity or another religion. Just so happens Christianity made it out on top.

It if were introduced at some other time or place in history, or under different circumstances, the popularity of the religion may have turned out differently. Perhaps 1/3 of the planet would be Ngongo, and Christianity would remain an obscure religion between a small tribe of people (if it survived).

 

[Hexxenhammer]

This is how you understand it, but I don't think you should attack a position you believe the other person is implying. Isn't that a strawman?



This would be a theory, one theory.

I was attempting NOT to set up a strawman. Oh well...

What's your theory as to why Christianity is popular then? Personally, I think it was blind luck. The Roman's adopt it, Europe then adopts it, all social and political power ends up tied to it, Europe fends off Mongols (who, had they not enforced freedom of religion, may have made the world whatever the hell they were (animists? Buddhists?)), Europe has the renaissance, that allows expansion through new technology, and christianity is then forced at the end of a gun on the natives wherever europeans go.

 

[Christian]

you have not said anything about the correctnes of Christianity in so many words, but your question

when read in the context of you other posts seems to imply that you think that Christianity is so powerful because it is true. If I am wrong and you were merely asking a rhetorical question, I apologize.

But there are so many possible explanations. Let me give another. The facts are not correct, but the message is compelling. Why would you infer only one explanation? bias?

As for the question about Buddhism, it doesn't really have a lot to do with the age of the civilization as much as the agressive spreading of that civilization. Buddhism may well be the most powerful religion in China and China may well be an older civilization than Europe, but China has never been as aggressive about spreading that culture, through either force or trade. Early in their history, they had no interest in sharing their civilization with other cultures that they considered barbaric. Byt he time that attitude changed, we barbarians had eclipsed them in wealth and power. If that attitude had been different early on, we might well all be Buddhists.

This leads, by the way, to another factor in Christianity's spread. It demands (or has been interpreted to demand, anyway) aggresive proselytizing. Buddhism has never, so far as I know, been interpreted in such a way that demands it's adherents to convert others to it. Christianity has been. Combine this with the spread of western culture over the centuries and it owuld be mazing if Christianity WEREN'T such a major force in the world.

But you are speculating. Why would this speculation be any better than someone else's saying that the message is just more interesting?