What makes some religions good at conversion, and others not?

[Mr_Fanboy]

There is a currently-active thread asking a similar question about Islam, but I felt as though the topic could be broadened. To quote my post from that thread...

A more broad question that I would like to see answered is why some religions are good at converting and some are not.

For invaders, while the early Muslim conquerors were ultimately successful in spreading their religion and culture throughout many of the lands that they conquered, the Germanic conquerors of the Western Roman Empire, such as the Goths, Lombards and Vandals, failed to really inculcate Arian Christianity into the local population.

The Ottoman Empire assimilated spread Islam to a great many people in the Balkans and the Near East, but the earlier Central Asian invaders into the region, such as the Bulgars and the Magyars, gave up their Tengrism and adopted the religions of their new subjects.

Both Christianity and Islam did a great job generally of winning converts, securing their statuses as the world’s two largest religions in the present, but Manichaeism, the other major proselytizing religion to arise in roughly the same time and space before spreading over a great portion of Eurasia, largely disappeared in the fullness of time.

Now, in hindsight, perhaps Tengrism was not a great example in this context, but my other points still stand. How come some religions that are open to converts are successful in winning them, and others are not?

 

[writofcertiorari]

I have a theory that people are more likely to switch from polytheism to monotheism than vice versa. This is due to “exclusivity.” Polytheistic religions are typically not very exclusive. You can add another God, such as Christianity or Islam, to your pantheon. Gradually, Christianity gains influence within that pantheon, or Islam does, etc. This happened to some extent in colonial times.

Meanwhile, Christians and Muslims, along with Judaism, is exclusive of other Gods. You cannot “add” Gods to those religions without violating that religion.

I think this explanation is sufficient while not going into problematic notions of “superiority” of polytheism.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

I have a theory that people are more likely to switch from polytheism to monotheism than vice versa. This is due to “exclusivity.” Polytheistic religions are typically not very exclusive. You can add another God, such as Christianity or Islam, to your pantheon. Gradually, Christianity gains influence within that pantheon, or Islam does, etc. This happened to some extent in colonial times.

Meanwhile, Christians and Muslims, along with Judaism, is exclusive of other Gods. You cannot “add” Gods to those religions without violating that religion.

I think this explanation is sufficient while not going into problematic notions of “superiority” of polytheism.

Fair point, but my question was less about why, say, European paganism disappeared than it was about why Nicene Christianity replaced it as opposed to Arian Christianity, Manichaeism, Sol Invictus, or any of the other faiths that started winning some converts around the time of the decline of the Roman Empire.

Was it simply because that was the religion that Constantine threw his weight behind, or was there something more fundamental going on?

 

[kholieken]

- State Support : Christianity spread in North Europe is greatly help by its status as Roman Empire State Religion, similarly Caliphate helped spread Islam
- Trade Route : once Islam control Indian Ocean trade route, many trade partner (Champa, Aceh, etc) converted. Some of Byzantine trade partner converted to Orthodoxy
- Luck : Persecution at wrong time could kill a religion (Nestorianism and Manichaeism in China), while Chaos and Civil War at good time could give opportunity for 'new' religion to spread.
- sophisticated Philosophical / Theology basis in religion could help religion spread among upper caste
- charity network : success in helping poor / sick / etc could help religion spread
- Mysticism could help spread religion among those who seek 'enlightement'.

Religion is one of 'soft tech' that very sophisticated and not easily analyzable. Its like accounting system, military promotion-reward- punishment system, logistics system, or state loyalty system. We know some country had more effective system than others, but analyzing it is complex and difficult affair. Some religion simply 'better' when competing with other religion.

 

[Canaan Osborne]

Being relatively simple and being attractive in some way.

 

[Socrates]

Stressing equality before God. In most of history, the vast majority were dirt poor and barely above subsistence. Being told they were just as good as those that ruled their shitty lives was hugely inspiring. Christianity and Islam spread like wildfire because of it. This was also why Marxism spread so much in the developing world.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Stressing equality before God. In most of history, the vast majority were dirt poor and barely above subsistence. Being told they were just as good as those that ruled their shitty lives was hugely inspiring. Christianity and Islam spread like wildfire because of it. This was also why Marxism spread so much in the developing world.

Christianity had difficulties spreading into Iraq despite the local polytheistic religious and its harsh tone against the idea of equality. Communal life trumped the ideals of salvation until state support for the Great Gods ended under Sassanid rule, permitting the rise of Christianity as communal life centered around great temple complexes diminished or fell into disarray. Even with this, pagan religiosity to the great gods remained strong until Islam. Al-Tabari describes that the Muslim armies converted entire cities who were polytheist to Islam in mass gatherings.


It should be noted in this case, that implies that Mesopotamian polytheism, the worship of the Great Gods existed for some 3800 years of history as a large religious contingent (that is with writing). A far longer period of time than Islam or Christianity has existed.

 

[Socrates]

Christianity had difficulties spreading into Iraq despite the local polytheistic religious and its harsh tone against the idea of equality. Communal life trumped the ideals of salvation until state support for the Great Gods ended under Sassanid rule, permitting the rise of Christianity as communal life centered around great temple complexes diminished or fell into disarray. Even with this, pagan religiosity to the great gods remained strong until Islam. Al-Tabari describes that the Muslim armies converted entire cities who were polytheist to Islam in mass gatherings.


It should be noted in this case, that implies that Mesopotamian polytheism, the worship of the Great Gods existed for some 3800 years of history as a large religious contingent (that is with writing). A far longer period of time than Islam or Christianity has existed.

I am not clear how your point relates to mine.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

I'm not sure there is that much of a common factor to determine an answer. The largest religions in the world all spread in unique ways. Christianity spread mostly due to it promising a good afterlife for everyone regardless of social status (which Judaism did as well but it was not all inclusive and didn't focus so much on forgiveness.) Islam spread initially through war but it was able to spread due to tolerance (the armies that built the caliphate's were diverse in theology, it was only after lands were conquered in the near East that campaigns to convert were undertaken: and they were nothing like, say, the northern crusade.) As mentioned up thread once Islam controlled the center of world trade it was only natural for it to spread to the trading partners. While Buddhism spread in a way similar to how Christianity spread into Rome (at least in Asia,) that is very much against the grain.

I'm certain the answer is right place at the right time and a large helping of luck.

 

[mike of mass]

Both Islam and Christianity also imposed considerable hardships on people of other faiths that were lifted immediately upon conversion. For those for whom religion was not central to their identity it would be easy to convert. Furthermore the draconian punishments for apostasy towards both the apostate and the welcoming non-whatever community would make this a one way flow. While both Islam and Christianity are inclusive in the sense of seeking converts, in their formative years there was also the attitude of ours is the only truth and aside from using the Jews as witnesses to their triumph, few examples of live and let live in places that they dominated

 

[Canaan Osborne]

Memetic palatability.

 

[Nephi]

Sometimes it's all about timing, Mormons and probably Jehovah's witnesses as well.

Depressed shut in who's lonely,

knock knock who could it be, ah yes it's a window to the world.

Read this book, we will stop by and check on you regularly, and then when they ask "God" if it's true, their subconscious is going to give a resounding yes.