If approximately one third of the world

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

subscribes to elements of christianity, how have they been so successful?

Seems like a pretty good model for selling ideas.

[slothman]

subscribes to elements of christianity, how have they been so successful?

Seems like a pretty good model for selling ideas.

Don't quote me but I think it is successful because the only way to get to Heaven is to believe Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior.
You can be a horrible person but only this is needed to get to God.
Most religions require more than just thought and deeds must be done as well.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Don't quote me but I think it is successful because the only way to get to Heaven is to believe Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior.
You can be a horrible person but only this is needed to get to God.
Most religions require more than just thought and deeds must be done as well.

Not judging, trying to engage is a religious debate, or anything like that.

Message or marketing? You suggest its the message.

Christianity is a radical idea for a non-believer. How come the freedom message and the Ron Paul campaign was not more popular?

[MelissaWV]

Not judging, trying to engage is a religious debate, or anything like that.

Message or marketing? You suggest its the message.

Christianity is a radical idea for a non-believer. How come the freedom message and the Ron Paul campaign was not more popular?

Freedom takes work. Having the Government give you things, on its surface, seems like it's almost no work at all. If you ask the average person to read one or two books, several founding documents, a plethora of resolutions/laws/exec. orders, then they are going to look at you funny. If you tell them they can go see a doctor for free, and it'll save the spotted owls (show cute fluffy owl picture to average person) then they're going to be giddy.

The trouble is in shaking those people just enough that they realize nothing's really ever without cost, but leaving enough will intact that they don't just give up anyhow. If they get to the "what's the use? They're going to do it anyhow I may as well get my free flu shot!" point, then there's no fixing it.

As for the religious part of things, you also need to remember Christianity has a wide variety of flavors encompassed in that general category. There are some less savory reasons why Christianity is so global, too. Remember all those clever conquering groups, or those who "tamed" the last batches of slaves and such? Many of them happened to be Christian, and so the religion spread. Buddhists, for some silly reason, never went on to conquer the world, so there weren't aggressive outposts spreading the Word.

Once the localities were "mostly Christian" it was a matter of that religion eating up the local religion, or changing just slightly enough to incorporate new rituals.
There are areas of the world now which are "Christian" but worship the saints with old rituals, treating them like spirits and even making small sacrifices to them.

Spread aggressively, adapt the message, and embrace those whose message is different in the details but similar overall.

[BlackTerrel]

Not judging, trying to engage is a religious debate, or anything like that.

Message or marketing? You suggest its the message.

Christianity is a radical idea for a non-believer. How come the freedom message and the Ron Paul campaign was not more popular?

I don't really think this is the best analogy, and it helps that Jesus Christ is the Messiah but I'll play along.

Both Christians and RP supporters were very devoted to their beliefs and spreading their message. But a lot of RP people thought the best way to spread the message was to spam and annoy everyone they came across. Instead of rationally explaining the issues it was "RP is God... oh you support Obama? You must be a brainwashed idiot who believes everything they see on the MSM", spamming YouTube videos etc. The Republican debates air on Fox and 98.7% of the audience votes that Ron Paul won. First time it happened it was kind of clever, the fifth time it was just annoying and killed the poll. I remember my cousin telling me he was playing in a high school basketball game with 2-300 hundred people in the crowd suddenly 30 RP supporters with drums come in and start cheering for Ron Paul in the middle of the game.

I could go on. I'm not saying it was everyone, maybe not even the majority but it was very very visible. Fervor is good. Annoying the crap out of everyone is not.

[ScoutsHonor]

subscribes to elements of christianity, how have they been so successful?

Seems like a pretty good model for selling ideas.

IMO:
1) Forgiveness of sin. (Biggest factor, together with)

2) Very attractive Heaven ("In my Father's house are many mansions..")

[fisharmor]

As for the religious part of things, you also need to remember Christianity has a wide variety of flavors encompassed in that general category. There are some less savory reasons why Christianity is so global, too. Remember all those clever conquering groups, or those who "tamed" the last batches of slaves and such? Many of them happened to be Christian, and so the religion spread. Buddhists, for some silly reason, never went on to conquer the world, so there weren't aggressive outposts spreading the Word.


Wow, that's not just value-loaded, that's a high-capacity magazine full of 'em.
Was the bayonet what converted the Roman Empire?
Is that what converted northern Europe?
Did Cyril and Methodius bring armies with them to Russia?
How did the ancient Christian churches of India get there? Or the dark-age era bishopric of China?
What's converting Africa right now? Or making resurgences in South America?

The point-of-sword conversions, which I fully acknowledge, are insignificant to the spread of Christianity.


Once the localities were "mostly Christian" it was a matter of that religion eating up the local religion, or changing just slightly enough to incorporate new rituals.
There are areas of the world now which are "Christian" but worship the saints with old rituals, treating them like spirits and even making small sacrifices to them.

Right - and you didn't see the real bloodshed start until a group of troublemakers in the 16th century started pointing out these adaptations for what they really are.


Spread aggressively, adapt the message, and embrace those whose message is different in the details but similar overall.

Sounds an awful lot like our current Republican party.


To answer the question: I don't believe there is a comparison. If you want to study how Christianity spread, you need to iris out from the microcosm of what happened to the plains indians, and examine 2000 years of history throughout the world.

What spread Christianity? I think I could demonstrate that in every successful case, it was the Gospel. The Gospel message is different from every other religion in that it reaches out to the hearer and attempts to bring something into his or her life - it attempts to reach him or her as an individual and bring healing not just in this life, but forever.

In short: message. In the marketplace of ideas, the message stands out.

Now realize also that you've hit on the Church's modern heresy: marketing. Substantial numbers of us are pretty fed up with the megachurch movement, because it's vaporware. It doesn't work - well it does, but only insofar as it sends tens of thousands of people home ok with their lives. But the whole point of Christianity is to make you ok with your death... so it's a failed product. One that was marketed really well.

Christianity prior to about 20 years ago has never said anything about marketing. You take the product, or you don't. (Or, yes, in certain isolated circumstances we kill you.) But the point is that for 2000 years (the time when it actually spread) marketing was never part of the plan.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." -Jesus

There is nothing in there about making it palatable, and he specifically said teaching them everything I have commanded you, not "make up something on the fly based on the local customs".

Bringing it back to libertarianism... why do we need to get into marketing?
If the point is to overcome some sort of unfairness in the marketplace of ideas, then I'd be for it. Otherwise, the only thing marketing does is obscure the truth.

I'm taking a break from mocking up a bunch of reports that don't exist in our software, so our "marketing" guy can go try to get a sale. He's selling something that doesn't exist. Just like the megachurch.

If they buy, then it'll be up to me and a bunch of other people to a) figure out what the hell he promised and b) come up with something close to what the user expects.

Is this not the whole problem with the 2-party system? That both are promising things that can't be? Isn't that why we have periodic complete turnover like last year, when it becomes evident to the "user" that the system they were sold doesn't work and isn't going to be fixed?

If there's a way to market the idea that we have a way to fix things, great. But I see the marketing as very much part of the problem. And the other two competitors have now threatened violence on those who would purchase air time to explain it.

[Sandman33]

Funny because approximately 95% of the world subscribes to Luciferian Hedonism. Must be a great salesman...

[MelissaWV]

Wow, that's not just value-loaded, that's a high-capacity magazine full of 'em.
Was the bayonet what converted the Roman Empire?
Is that what converted northern Europe?
Did Cyril and Methodius bring armies with them to Russia?
How did the ancient Christian churches of India get there? Or the dark-age era bishopric of China?
What's converting Africa right now? Or making resurgences in South America?

The point-of-sword conversions, which I fully acknowledge, are insignificant to the spread of Christianity.

So it is your argument that the fact the religion spread and had been an option globally had nothing to do with its global adoption? That seems a bit sideways.

Christians, by and large and for whatever reason was popular at the time, tended to move around a great deal more than members of other religions. I didn't say it was responsible for all Christianity. Sheesh. To not see, though, that areas which were colonized by the Spanish are still highly Christian (Catholic) today... well I guess there's no helping that. That's not necessarily "point-of-sword," but more like "point-of-colonization". The people that moved to the new areas brought their religion with them. The US saw this, too, and various portions of Africa, and Central America, and South America, and the Caribbean, etc..

It isn't something inherent in the religions themselves. It's a matter of opportunity in many cases. People don't tend to investigate religions and then pick one. Many times people go with what they were raised with.

Hell, this has more to do with the category. Protestants and Catholics of old probably wouldn't care much for being counted in the same category.

The only "value-loaded" word used was "unsavory". I fail to see what got your hackles up. It's just my two cents anyhow.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

If approximately one third of the world subscribes to elements of christianity, how have they been so successful?

Seems like a pretty good model for selling ideas.



It's not about selling ideas at all. Religious determinism will help you gather troops and win wars.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

It's not about selling ideas at all. Religious determinism will help you gather troops and win wars.

I get your point, not where I was looking to go with the discussion.

Message or Marketing?

What is the next evolution of the revolution?

[fisharmor]

So it is your argument that the fact the religion spread and had been an option globally had nothing to do with its global adoption? That seems a bit sideways.

No, my argument is that the sword had nothing to do with its adoption. Christianity has flirted with the sword throughout history but its results have always been insignificant, and in all the cases I can think of off the top of my head, harmful.
It took the most monstrously evil and anti-religion state in history to come close to stamping it out of Russia, which voluntarily converted a thousand years ago in response to missionary activity.
Juxtapose that with what your average American Indian thinks about Christianity a century later.
Besides having a really embarrasing bit part in Christianity's history, it also doesn't work.


Christians, by and large and for whatever reason was popular at the time, tended to move around a great deal more than members of other religions. I didn't say it was responsible for all Christianity. Sheesh. To not see, though, that areas which were colonized by the Spanish are still highly Christian (Catholic) today... well I guess there's no helping that. That's not necessarily "point-of-sword," but more like "point-of-colonization". The people that moved to the new areas brought their religion with them. The US saw this, too, and various portions of Africa, and Central America, and South America, and the Caribbean, etc..

Yes, but S. America also has an awful lot of (I apologize for lack of a better term) "wild Indians" living in it... and the current resurgence there is in evangelical protestantism. And the evangelical protestants are particularly zealous in spreading their message.


It isn't something inherent in the religions themselves. It's a matter of opportunity in many cases. People don't tend to investigate religions and then pick one. Many times people go with what they were raised with.

What I was getting at with mentioning examples like Russia and northern Europe is that those are all cases where Christianity sent missionaries to try actively to convert the populace. Of course, a religion that doesn't have something to say about how to raise your kids is no religion at all... but raising your kids is the maintenance phase, and we're talking about the spread phase.

It probably did help that Christian missionaries most of the time had a local king to deal with, though. Convert him, and you convert the whole kingdom.

Maybe we should send Libertarian missionaries to Pennsylvania Avenue to work on King Barry...


The only "value-loaded" word used was "unsavory". I fail to see what got your hackles up. It's just my two cents anyhow.

Well, I apologize about the hackles. The whole point-of-sword thing is quite an embarrassment. It's often made into more than it was in order to discredit Christianity, and I assumed that was where this was going. I apologize.