Why do Non-Christians vastly outnumber Christians?

[laughing dog]

Another thread prompted the OP question - Why do Non-Christians vastly outnumber Christians?

According to
  List of religious populations out of roughly 7.8 billion religionists, Christians are about 31% of that total (which excludes atheists).

Why do you think that is?

Considering that Christianity is being compared to many other groups, 31 percent is an amazingly large proportion of the world's population. So the answer is that it takes vast numbers of religious groups jumbled together to overcome Christianity's numbers. Whatever else we might think of Christianity, it is the undisputed champ of influencing large numbers of people.

Given the wide variation in the denominations of Christians, I’d say your Christianity apologia is both revealing and unconvincing.

It doesn’t take vast numbers of religious groups to outnumber Christianity’s numbers. Islam’s plus Hinduism’s number is larger than Christianity.

How about you address the OP instead of dismissing it as dumb? It certainly isn’t any dumber than asking why there are more Christians than atheists, especially when the asker thinks there are no true atheists.

 

[James Brown]

A good analogy is to point out that Mike is the strongest man on the football team. Would you try to counter that claim by pointing out that the rest of the team together is much stronger than Mike?

Not a good analogy. Christian faith is a binary property. A person either is or is not a Christian. (How to define what makes a Christian is a controversial topic for another thread.)

Strength is a property that lies on a continuum. Every living person has some strength--even a comatose person has the strength to maintain basic bodily functions.

 

[Elixir]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

 

[Politesse]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

Karma.

 

[TomC]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

Karma.

Karma is a bitch.

So I've heard.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

Karma.

Karma is a bitch.

So I've heard.
Tom

Rather an understatement, from a Buddhist perspective. "Sin" has nothing on "negative karma".

 

[steve_bank]

I plugged karma onto an online translator that takes ancient terms and gives modern equivalent.

The modern equivalent to karma is 'what goes around comes around'.

Now if I could only figure out what 'what goes around comes around' means....

 

[TomC]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

Karma.

Karma is a bitch.

So I've heard.
Tom

Rather an understatement, from a Buddhist perspective. "Sin" has nothing on "negative karma".

I understand quite well that certain behaviors tend to result in certain outcomes. Moral behavior usually results in good outcomes, immoral behavior usually results in bad outcomes.
No guarantees though. There's no God who cares, just the unyielding universe. So I decided on a different faith based belief.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

The modern equivalent to karma is 'what goes around comes around'.

Now if I could only figure out what 'what goes around comes around' means

That describes the English language use of the word better than the original Vedic meaning. A literal translation would be "the action along with the intent." The consequence of your actions flows from your intent in doing them. Rousseau can correct me if I am off base I am sure!

 

[Politesse]

Why isn’t everyone a Buddhist?

Karma.

Karma is a bitch.

So I've heard.
Tom

Rather an understatement, from a Buddhist perspective. "Sin" has nothing on "negative karma".

I understand quite well that certain behaviors tend to result in certain outcomes. Moral behavior usually results in good outcomes, immoral behavior usually results in bad outcomes.
No guarantees though. There's no God who cares, just the unyielding universe. So I decided on a different faith based belief.
Tom

Whether the gods enforce karma or are just as subject to it as the rest of us is, I believe, a notorious point of disagreement between the various Indian schools of thought.

 

[steve_bank]

I said this before, when I went through Buddhism in the 70s I stumbled around with the terms until I realized it was generalized social and psychological concepts expressed in the terms of an ancient culture.

In his videos the Dali Lana touches on how it translates into modern life. He describes Buddhism as two parts. The religious aspect along with it being a science of mind.

Karma cnm be at the personal, family, community, and national levels. To me karma is a curability analogous to causality in physics. Thoughts are a chain of causation that lead to speech and actions.

The goal through meditation is rise abovethe causation.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Considering that Christianity is being compared to many other groups, 31 percent is an amazingly large proportion of the world's population. So the answer is that it takes vast numbers of religious groups jumbled together to overcome Christianity's numbers. Whatever else we might think of Christianity, it is the undisputed champ of influencing large numbers of people.

Given the wide variation in the denominations of Christians, I’d say your Christianity apologia is both revealing and unconvincing.

"Christianity apologia"? What I just posted above is a plain fact that any truth seeker should know. I'm as critical of Christianity as you are if not more so. I just won't libel Christianity because I don't need to. The truth is sufficient to expose it as the pack of lies that it is.

It doesn’t take vast numbers of religious groups to outnumber Christianity’s numbers. Islam’s plus Hinduism’s number is larger than Christianity.

You're nitpicking here. Yes, combine two or three of the larger non-Christian religions and you can exceed the number of Christians. But my point remains that Christianity tops the list of the number of adherents.

How about you address the OP instead of dismissing it as dumb?

I did address the OP.

 

[laughing dog]

Considering that Christianity is being compared to many other groups, 31 percent is an amazingly large proportion of the world's population. So the answer is that it takes vast numbers of religious groups jumbled together to overcome Christianity's numbers. Whatever else we might think of Christianity, it is the undisputed champ of influencing large numbers of people.

Given the wide variation in the denominations of Christians, I’d say your Christianity apologia is both revealing and unconvincing.

"Christianity apologia"? What I just posted above is a plain fact that any truth seeker should know. I'm as critical of Christianity as you are if not more so. I just won't libel Christianity because I don't need to. The truth is sufficient to expose it as the pack of lies that it is.

Try addressing the point about the wide variations in Christianity instead of apologia about your Christian apologia.

It doesn’t take vast numbers of religious groups to outnumber Christianity’s numbers. Islam’s plus Hinduism’s number is larger than Christianity.

You're nitpicking here. Yes, combine two or three of the larger non-Christian religions and you can exceed the number of Christians. But my point remains that Christianity tops the list of the number of adherents.

That Christian apologia is non-responsive to the OP.

How about you address the OP instead of dismissing it as dumb?

I did address the OP.

You confuse your irrelevant butthurt Christian apologia with addressing the Op,

 

[ZiprHead]

And why the hell is my church (Tibetan Orthodox Bok Choyist) not doing better? Our sacraments do revolve around cabbage. But cabbage is good for you, goddammit. (TOBCs are allowed to swear; it's even encouraged as a sign of robust faith in the face of worldwide derision. Fuck the Abrahamic religions.)
Okay, who wants to sign up?

Mmmm. Cole slaw...

 

[ideologyhunter]

And why the hell is my church (Tibetan Orthodox Bok Choyist) not doing better? Our sacraments do revolve around cabbage. But cabbage is good for you, goddammit. (TOBCs are allowed to swear; it's even encouraged as a sign of robust faith in the face of worldwide derision. Fuck the Abrahamic religions.)
Okay, who wants to sign up?

Mmmm. Cole slaw...

I just took your post to the Ecclesiastic Tribunal of Cabbage. It was reviewed by the Head of Cabbage himself. His words:
This Ziprhead cannot enter the church as yet. At best we classify him a learner. First, he does not make clear his desire to fellowship. Second, he doesn't even make one goddamn effort at profanity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A good analogy is to point out that Mike is the strongest man on the football team. Would you try to counter that claim by pointing out that the rest of the team together is much stronger than Mike?

Not a good analogy. Christian faith is a binary property. A person either is or is not a Christian. (How to define what makes a Christian is a controversial topic for another thread.)

Strength is a property that lies on a continuum. Every living person has some strength--even a comatose person has the strength to maintain basic bodily functions.

I don't follow your logic. Yes, physical strength is arguably on a continuous scale, and Christian adherence is normally seen as a dichotomy. Nevertheless, I see no reason to see any difficulty in comparing the relative "strength" of numbers of Christians compared to numbers of members of other groups to whom has the greatest strength on the football team. Christianity having the greatest number of members is symbolized in my analogy by Mike, the strongest member of the football team. Other sects having fewer numbers are represented by the other, weaker members on the football team. Simple.

Are you sure you're not just trying to make the discussion difficult?

 

[TomC]

I don't follow your logic.

I am shocked.
Shocked I tell you!

Words can't begin to describe my shock at this revelation.
Tom


Ps. If I am not already on your ignore list, feel free.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A good analogy is to point out that Mike is the strongest man on the football team. Would you try to counter that claim by pointing out that the rest of the team together is much stronger than Mike?

Not a good analogy. Christian faith is a binary property. A person either is or is not a Christian. (How to define what makes a Christian is a controversial topic for another thread.)

Strength is a property that lies on a continuum. Every living person has some strength--even a comatose person has the strength to maintain basic bodily functions.

I don't follow your logic. Yes, physical strength is arguably on a continuous scale, and Christian adherence is normally seen as a dichotomy. Nevertheless, I see no reason to see any difficulty in comparing the relative "strength" of numbers of Christians compared to numbers of members of other groups to whom has the greatest strength on the football team. Christianity having the greatest number of members is symbolized in my analogy by Mike, the strongest member of the football team. Other sects having fewer numbers are represented by the other, weaker members on the football team. Simple.

Are you sure you're not just trying to make the discussion difficult?

But Mike might be extremely slow and at the end of his football career, while John might be twice as fast, almost as strong, and understand leverage far better. So next year Islam (John) becomes the Super Bowl champ and Christianity (Mike) declines into 2nd place. But then again Mike has most of the nukes and isn't afraid to use them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And why the hell is my church (Tibetan Orthodox Bok Choyist) not doing better? Our sacraments do revolve around cabbage. But cabbage is good for you, goddammit. (TOBCs are allowed to swear; it's even encouraged as a sign of robust faith in the face of worldwide derision. Fuck the Abrahamic religions.)
Okay, who wants to sign up?

The problem is that you are relying too much on ideas and expecting the idea to permeate culture and gain traction. We can observe that this is mostly wrong based on data. Historically, particular religions have been spread through imperialism. Following that, the reach of the empires hit walls against other empires as a somewhat limiting factor. And the countries and cultures have maintained a hold on religious affiliation in their respective geographies by a stranglehold on institutions, cultural pressure, and continuous mental manipulations. So...basically you are going to need to set up an army, force converts, take over institutions. OR construct a compound and start making a cult of worship and force and/or pressure people to stay in the cult. Besides all that, you'll probably also have to start being more inclusive of people who like lettuce in their fish tacos.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If you are implying that the TOBC will ever pemit greens-mixing, that's a no. We will preserve our identity no matter how the outside world (bunch of SOBs, you know) perceives us. Outside greens poison the salad bar, as a great contemporary American has noted. You may think a bowl of chopped lettuce is harmless. Would you want your sister to marinate one?