Why do Christians become Christians?

[robvalue]

Killing people who disagree works too, it effectively increases the percentages.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Let's not also forget the Christians' (at least in the USA) tireless efforts to put out the message that this is a Christian country, and that Others don't "really" belong, even if they're somewhat tolerated. That's why it was so important to get "In God We Trust" on the money, to alter the Pledge of Allegiance, et cetera, and then to flaunt it every chance they get. Crosses and monuments to the Ten Commandments on our public properties. Politicians and criminal defendants swearing on the Bible. Major holidays for the Christian holidays, such as Christmas. And so on it goes-- the pressure is everywhere, and we as a social species have evolved a strong tendency toward conformity. That degree of social pressure can eventually cause a person to try to conform to the wishes of family/community, especially in times of emotional trauma and loneliness... the Christians openly recognize this, which is why they pimp the whole "Jesus, the friend of a wounded heart" message so heavily.

As has already been stated, what would be good evidence of the "truth" of Christian claims would be to find a place where the Word was independently sent to, say, the residents of Palau, prior to the arrival of Westerners in that area. The very fact that every religion spreads as a meme is strong evidence to me that it's not really "from God", but a product of human psychology. For instance, they claim God sent Jesus to tell everyone on earth about how to get to heaven... well, everyone on earth except for the ~75 generations of Native Americans who went nearly 1500 years without getting to hear that message. God is apparently a pretty poor planner, as he appears to have had no knowledge of those people in the "New World" until Westerners stumbled upon it. (Thus the attempted Mormon "solution" to this problem, laughable as its claims are.) And as has already been pointed out, it's "just amaaaaazing" that people overwhelmingly tend to join the religion into which they are born/raised, or in which culture they have been immersed.

[SteveII]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[robvalue]

I've noticed over the years that some people (I'm not pointing fingers) do not see a difference between "religion" and "my religion", when it comes to what should and shouldn't be allowed. "Other religions" are just misguided fools of no significance.

[Mister Agenda]

[Jackie]

All religions get started the same way. The person, or group get's tired of the old ways, they take the motifs of surrounding and or prior clubs, promote similar ideas with different details, and demonize the old ways at the same time. When enough of that majority gets upset at the new upstart, they play the persecuted minority. Everyone loves an underdog story who goes on to be victorious.

Buddhism got started as a rejection of the Hinduism it was spawned from. The first Hebrews started that as rejection of the Canaanite polytheism that spawned it. Christianity incorporated the OT of the Jews to market their new religion, but still today sell the idea that only Jesus can be the one true hero. Islam is simply the third book in the series.

Religions don't pop up out of a vacuum. The start the same way, and only are successful, not because the religion is unique that has a patent on our species morality, they simply get successfully marketed, like Coke and Pepsi compete.

[Angrboda]

Has anyone ever "come to Jesus" without having heard about him and the stories surrounding him for long periods?

I think not. The seeping in of ideas surrounding you is not surprising. People independently describing "meeting" Jesus, while isolated from any mention of him, would be surprising.

In short, people are very susceptible to the appeal to popularity fallacy. If many people seem to believe it, it appears a reasonable belief.

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted. The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same. Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.

[SteveII]

Yes, of course they have. As an example, Billy Graham has spoken to millions of people in large events specifically designed to reach unbelievers. They respond to the message by the thousands--many with discussions and conversions on the spot. People who do profess or who are interested in learning more are assigned to a local church for followup.

Conversion experiences like this have more to do with the nature of human psychology than the message being promoted.  The great tent revivals preached a far less 'friendly' message than contemporary revivals do, but the atmosphere was the same.  Hysteria and group think are not good reasons to adopt any belief.

Can you name some other examples that would illustrate your point that the message is not important? Hysteria and group think might come into play while one is at the meeting, but what accounts for days and years later when most are still Christians?

[SteveII]

I've noticed over the years that some people (I'm not pointing fingers) do not see a difference between "religion" and "my religion", when it comes to what should and shouldn't be allowed. "Other religions" are just misguided fools of no significance.

I think you are right. Religions freedom should not be limited to Christians.