Did Jesus fail to convince in the end?

[marco]

Christianity is not the force it was. In the past it swept across continents, converting by one means or another. Churches now sit empty and some have become mosques.
Does this decline suggest that the movement did not have a God behind it, in Jesus, but a strong preacher with an interesting message which is less attractive to modern ears?

Why would a message, authorised by God himself, lose its appeal? Is it the fault of the messenger or the listeners? Is Jesus on the verge of dying out, after a spectacular resurrection?

[historia]

Many Christians seem to take great pride in announcing that Christianity is growing

Also, when Christians count noses to claim importance, they tend to count every one possible.

You might want to consider the distinct possibility that you're projecting your own concerns onto others here.

I have never once seen a Christian on this forum bring this topic up. In my experience, they seem wholly uninterested in counting noses. Whereas the atheists here regularly bring this topic up, this thread being just the latest example.

It seems to me that several atheists on this forum are emotionally invested in these numbers. Or, more to the point, are emotionally invested in a grand narrative in which atheism is on the rise, and thus feel the need to discount any numbers that don't support that narrative. The Christians here seem to have no corresponding concern.

[marco]

I'm not sure what that means. Don't Muslims believe in Jesus? Why should only Christian views on Jesus be considered relevant for this discussion?

An odd question. Christians follow Jesus; Muslims follow Muhammad. Jesus is a technicality in Islam and he is annexed along with the Prophets to comply with the view that Muhammad is the last prophet and other missions were unsuccessful. Jesus did not give Islamic messages; he did not inspire the words: God forbid that Allah should have a son. It is wrong to use a faith, at variance with Christianity, as an example of Christ's influence. It was the LACK of Christ's influence that brought Islam into being.

Islam is growing in large part because of high birth rates among its adherents (although those are dropping), which has little to nothing to do with Christianity.

Yep, that is the status quo. It rose to dominance by wiping out Christians. Once dominant, its marriage laws replace the sword. Christ opined that nothing would prevail against his church - but he hadn't thought of Muhammad, his rival.

As for giving Christianity to hungry people, it is not a matter of native intelligence but will to live. I accept of course that the work of Christians in Third World countries has been in many cases truly amazing and reflects, in the devotion of those who help the needy, the best intentions of Jesus. But it is the singer not the song.

[historia]

It should be obvious to all that Historia's claims are not as impressive as he makes out.

It is not my intention to "impress" anyone with these number. I'm simply pointing out that the best demographic data we possess does not support the premises of the OP.

In so far as anyone imagines that I'm taking "pride" in these statistics or trying to "impress" them with these numbers, says more about their own emotional investment in the idea atheism is "winning" demographically than anything I've said.

Moreover, anyone can claim the numbers aren't perfect -- no demographic statistics can ever give us a complete understanding of the people they describe -- but since no one here has better statistics, the point is moot.

[historia]

I agree that in reality [Muhammed]] got his ideas from Jews and Christians

It is wrong to use a faith, at variance with Christianity, as an example of Christ's influence. It was the LACK of Christ's influence that brought Islam into being.

This argument seems a bit confused. On the one hand, you recognize that Christianity influenced Islam. But then, on the other, you're arguing this religion that was influenced by Christianity, in which Jesus is considered the virgin-born messiah who will come again to judge the living and the dead, somehow shows the lack of Jesus' influence?

No one is suggesting that Jesus occupies a similar place of importance in both religions or that they have identical views of Jesus. That is obviously not the case, so we can set such concerns aside.

The point I'm making, rather, is that the religion in which Jesus occupies a primary place (Christianity) and the one in which he has a secondary place (Islam) are both growing faster than the worldwide average. How then we can say his influence is declining is a bit beyond me.

The spread of Islam says more about the decline of Christianity than the popularity of Jesus.

Islam is growing in large part because of high birth rates among its adherents (although those are dropping), which has little to nothing to do with Christianity.

Yep, that is the status quo. It rose to dominance by wiping out Christians. Once dominant, its marriage laws replace the sword.

So, your argument is that Christianity has been "declining" since the 6th Century? That's a pretty gradual decline, I must say, considering Christianity has greatly increased as a percentage of the world's population in that time.

Christ opined that nothing would prevail against his church - but he hadn't thought of Muhammad, his rival.

This is, of course, a rather imprecise paraphrase and interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Neither this verse, nor any other in the New Testament, says that people can't fall away from the Christian faith. In fact, Matt. 24:10 and 2 Thess. 2:3 say nearly the opposite.

As for giving Christianity to hungry people, it is not a matter of native intelligence but will to live.

The problem, though, is that this is a mischaracterization of evangelism in Africa today, the vast majority of which is carried out by Africans themselves rather than non-African Christian aid agencies. This is what I mean about bad stereotypes.

[marco]

This argument seems a bit confused. On the one hand, you recognize that Christianity influenced Islam. But then, on the other, you're arguing this religion that was influenced by Christianity, in which Jesus is considered the virgin-born messiah who will come again to judge the living and the dead, somehow shows the lack of Jesus' influence?

I'm sorry you got confused. I said, clearly, that Jesus influenced Christianity and Muhammad influenced Islam. The religion that Muhammad built took bits from Judaism and Christianity and he added his own perceptions to produce a religion that was hostile to Christianity. You argue that Islam is just an benign offshoot of what Jesus said: it isn't. The fact that Jesus features in a role subservient to Muhammad indicates Muhammad's influence, not Christ's. Jesus is USED or perhaps abused to build Islamic ideas. The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose, as Antonio says, but we would not say the Devil is therefore influenced by Christ.

How then we can say his influence is declining is a bit beyond me.

It is understandably "beyond you" as you say because you are regarding Islam and Christianity as horses of the same stable when one is antagonistic to the other. The rise of one has been at the expense of the other. You might as well say that Communism, that endorses Christ's view of universal brotherhood, is an indication that Christ's message is alive and well.

So, your argument is that Christianity has been "declining" since the 6th Century? That's a pretty gradual decline, I must say, considering Christianity has greatly increased as a percentage of the world's population in that time.

No, once again you are confused. Christianity WAS powerful in Europe until recent times. It helped that Spain drove out the Moors. I said that Islam wiped out the strong Christian areas in the Middle East. Since the 7th century Islam and Christianity have been at loggerheads. Lepanto fixed some boundaries. But Islam is spreading in Europe - although you regard this as a sign of Christian health, oddly enough.

[OnceConvinced]

It should be obvious to all that Historia's claims are not as impressive as he makes out.

It is not my intention to "impress" anyone with these number. I'm simply pointing out that the best demographic data we possess does not support the premises of the OP.

In so far as anyone imagines that I'm taking "pride" in these statistics or trying to "impress" them with these numbers, says more about their own emotional investment in the idea atheism is "winning" demographically than anything I've said.

I never mentioned anything about your pride or you trying to impress anyone. My comments were regarding the statistics themselves.