Why did the Christian faith spread so far and last so long?

charles brough

Registered Senior Member
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

brough
civilization-overview dot com
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival.

The most recent estimates put the number of adherents at approximately 2.1 billion. This is roughly 30% of the world's population, which is currently estimated to be around 6.92 billion. It's reasonably impressive I guess. It bears mentioning however that this percentage undoubtedly includes those who identify as Christian through a vague familial association only and aren't really religious at all, although that would likely also be true (to a greater or lesser extent) of any religion.

As for it's longevity, most of us would be aware that it's certainly not the worlds oldest religion, even if one chooses to view it as an extension (but reformation) of Judaism.

An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

I think one should apply this question to religion as a whole considering that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the world are not Christian.

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

While there is certainly good evidence that it is the best selling book in the world, there is little evidence to suggest that it is most read book in the world. I mean seriously, how many people do you know who have a bible on the bookshelf, or tucked away somewhere else, but rarely if ever read it?
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Many of the major religions that still have adherents today are older than Christianity. Judaism certainly, since Christianity is derived from an ancient Jewish heresy. The Jains might well be the oldest surviving Indian religious tradition. Hinduism is derived from many different strands, but the Vedas, Brahmanas and many of the Upanishads are much older than Christianity. The Buddha taught in the 5'th century BCE, contemporary with classical Greece. (Around the same time that the old testament canon was solidifying.) Confucius and Daoism's Lao Tze date from around the same time.

Why did Christianity spread? First of all, it had the good fortune to be adopted as the state religion of the late Roman empire. That established it (more strongly here, only nominally there) all around the Mediterranean.

In the early medieval period, the old Germanic tribal confederacies were slowly forming into kingdoms, and the rising kings often favored late-Roman-style Christianity because it provided them with an ideological basis for their centralized monarchies. The emperor (and hence the kings) claimed to rule by divine right as God's appointed viceroy on earth. Often the traditional Germanic paganism was championed by the warrior aristocracies who favored the older traditional elective-kingship model where the king was basically a war-leader, simply the first among equals. This early medieval process of royal consolidaton and centralization was accelerated by the fact that Christianity brought trade relations with the more developed south along with it. It also brought literacy in Latin, a very attractive proposition for intellectuals since it opened up access to what remained of the ancient cultural inheritance.

And then, many centuries later, the Europeans erupted upon the rest of the world with the voyages of discovery, mercantilism, colonialism, and the scientific and industrial revolutions. The world started to become globalized on a European model, and Europe was still (albeit decreasingly) Christian.

In some areas, like most of the Western Hemisphere, Christianity was aggressively spread by force. In other areas such as large parts of Africa, it was voluntarily and even eagerly adopted by locals who saw it as more modern, sophisticated and worldly than their local traditions. It was only where Christianity encountered ancient and highly sophisticated established religious traditions such as Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism that this early-modern surge of Christianity slowed. And there was the Islamic world of course, kind of a special case since the younger (7'th century CE) Islam could be just as aggressively evangelical as Christianity at its worst.
 
Last edited:
The most recent estimates put the number of adherents at approximately 2.1 billion. This is roughly 30% of the world's population, which is currently estimated to be around 6.92 billion. It's reasonably impressive I guess. It bears mentioning however that this percentage undoubtedly includes those who identify as Christian through a vague familial association only and aren't really religious at all, although that would likely also be true (to a greater or lesser extent) of any religion. As for it's longevity, most of us would be aware that it's certainly not the worlds oldest religion, even if one chooses to view it as an extension (but reformation) of Judaism.I think one should apply this question to religion as a whole considering that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the world are not Christian. While there is certainly good evidence that it is the best selling book in the world, there is little evidence to suggest that it is most read book in the world. I mean seriously, how many people do you know who have a bible on the bookshelf, or tucked away somewhere else, but rarely if ever read it?

Rav, that was all just nit-picking. How about answering the lead question?
 
Rav, that was all just nit-picking.

What you call nit-picking I call challenging assumptions and putting things into perspective.

How about answering the lead question?

I'd probably take a shot at it if Yazata hadn't already done such an excellent job. He knows a lot more about history than I do.
 
Many of the major religions that still have adherents today are older than Christianity. Judaism certainly, since Christianity is derived from an ancient Jewish heresy. The Jains might well be the oldest surviving Indian religious tradition. Hinduism is derived from many different strands, but the Vedas, Brahmanas and many of the Upanishads are much older than Christianity. The Buddha taught in the 5'th century BCE, contemporary with classical Greece. (Around the same time that the old testament canon was solidifying.) Confucius and Daoism's Lao Tze date from around the same time.

Why did Christianity spread? First of all, it had the good fortune to be adopted as the state religion of the late Roman empire. That established it (more strongly here, only nominally there) all around the Mediterranean.

In the early medieval period, the old Germanic tribal confederacies were slowly forming into kingdoms, and the rising kings often favored late-Roman-style Christianity because it provided them with an ideological basis for their centralized monarchies. The emperor (and hence the kings) claimed to rule by divine right as God's appointed viceroy on earth. Often the traditional Germanic paganism was championed by the warrior aristocracies who favored the older traditional elective-kingship model where the king was basically a war-leader, simply the first among equals. This early medieval process of royal consolidaton and centralization was accelerated by the fact that Christianity brought trade relations with the more developed south along with it. It also brought literacy in Latin, a very attractive proposition for intellectuals since it opened up access to what remained of the ancient cultural inheritance.

And then, many centuries later, the Europeans erupted upon the rest of the world with the voyages of discovery, mercantilism, colonialism, and the scientific and industrial revolutions. The world started to become globalized on a European model, and Europe was still (albeit decreasingly) Christian.

In some areas, like most of the Western Hemisphere, Christianity was aggressively spread by force. In other areas such as large parts of Africa, it was voluntarily and even eagerly adopted by locals who saw it as more modern, sophisticated and worldly than their local traditions. It was only where Christianity encountered ancient and highly sophisticated established religious traditions such as Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism that this early-modern surge of Christianity slowed. And there was the Islamic world of course, kind of a special case since the younger (7'th century CE) Islam could be just as aggressively evangelical as Christianity at its worst.

I think you have an accurate picture there. But do you really think any of it is due to "good fortune?" It seems to me that Constantine accepted it because it was successful and he needed it to weld power. Also, that it arose and survived because it was superior to the old polytheisms that it replaced. we can now see how primitive it is, but it was advanced for the times. That is why it worked on into Medieval times and survives till today because we have so far failed to come up with something that can replace it .

brough
civilization-overview dot com
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

brough
civilization-overview dot com

Many cultural phenomenon last a long time. I should point out that Judaism has lasted longer, and several other religions even longer.

Also, these cultural forms are not static. Today's Christianity is not the same as it was 1500 years ago.

As far as the Bible, it was the first book ever printed using a printing press, and for a long time, it was the only book most people owned. Christianity was adopted by the Europeans, so it's popularity is attached in a sense to the success of Europe, which is due not to Christianity but to an accident of geography.
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

brough
civilization-overview dot com

Answer. Because of the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is God that has kept His message going all these centuries. Even in the hands of false followers it can still break through there false doctrines and corruptions and capture the conscience of men.

The Message is powerful stuff because God will not allow it to die; He will keep it going to the time of the return of the Messiah Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Many cultural phenomenon last a long time. I should point out that Judaism has lasted longer, and several other religions even longer.

Also, these cultural forms are not static. Today's Christianity is not the same as it was 1500 years ago.

As far as the Bible, it was the first book ever printed using a printing press, and for a long time, it was the only book most people owned. Christianity was adopted by the Europeans, so it's popularity is attached in a sense to the success of Europe, which is due not to Christianity but to an accident of geography.

You realize,don't you, I never stated that Christianity is the oldest religion? Or that it has not undergone some changes?

Perhaps Europe's success had something to do with it being molded by a better-than-the-old-polytheisms instead of being due to "luck" or "accident." In science, luck or accident don't really explain the cause and effect of things . . .

brough
civilization-overview dot com
 
I think you have an accurate picture there. But do you really think any of it is due to "good fortune?"

I think that most of it was due to good fortune. I don't think that Christianity had any direct connection to the voyages of discovery and with the scientific and industrial revolutions, for example, but it certainly benefited from effectively being a free-rider on growing European global ascendency. That's what spread Christianity around the world and why it's all over North and South America and in places like the Philippines today.

Imagine what would have happened if it was China that had sent its ships all around the world instead. They almost did, organizing a big exploratory fleet in the Indian ocean in the early Ming period (early 1400s CE) that visited the Persian gulf and sailed as far as Africa. But a later Ming emperor decided that the whole thing was a dangerous waste of money and outlawed any Chinese use of oceangoing ships without a hard-to-get government approval. ... Then a few decades later, the Europeans started sailing into their ports and we all know how that turned out.

If it had been the Chinese that sailed into European ports, if it had been China that conquered the Americas and Australia and South Africa and every small island in every ocean... We'd probably all be Confucians, Daoists and Buddhists today, writing internet posts about how those Asian religions are innately superior to the crude Western superstitions.

It seems to me that Constantine accepted it because it was successful and he needed it to weld power.

There's a whole historical literature about what motivated Constantine. Part of our problem with him is that we don't know a lot about the details of his thinking, apart from Christian writers like Eusebius who wanted to spin the account of Constantine's motivations in ways that would subsequently benefit the church.

There's one theory that he was basically a secular individual who saw that Diocletian's attempts to stamp out Christianity weren't working, and tried to coopt and use it instead. Another theory argues that Constantine was a committed Christian himself and favoring the church reflected his own belief.

I'm inclined to kind of straddle that difference. We know that Constantine was raised a pagan, but a rather unconventional pagan in a very eclectic, inclusive and syncretistic polytheistic atmosphere. We know that there were Christians among those who taught him as a youth, so he'd definitely been exposed to the religion.

My tendency is to read Constantine as a deep-down polytheist, somebody who kind of implicitly assumed that there are lots of gods (or at least lots of personas of one totally transcendent godhead, a quasi-monotheistic idea that was already very common anong Greco-Roman pagans) and that one offered cult, sacrificing to and offering prayers to and patronizing, whatever god was most auspicious to that individual in that circumstance. (Polythiests rarely actively worship all gods, they choose particular gods as theirs without denying the others.)

Constantine seems to have favored a Mithraic-style sun god in his younger years but seems to have started honoring the Christian god around 313 CE or so. There's a later story about how the Christian god led him to victory in battle at the Milvian bridge amidst glorious miraculous appearances in the sky. I don't give the miracle tales any credence, but it's certainly possible that an anxious general Constantine was offering prayers to different gods and happened to win his victory after praying to the Christian one. So he might well have decided, pagan style, that the Christian god was indeed the auspicious god for him to continue favoring.

For some years after, Constantine still seems to have recognized additional gods and still issued coins with his likeness and non-Christian inscriptions. But he gradually seems to have become more of a conventionally devout Christian believer as time passed and he found himself more and more closely linked to the Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy. That relationship quickly became symbiotic since he saw them as the nucleus of a unifying state-church that the emperor would naturally dominate as a caesaro-papistic divinely-chosen monarch, while the bishops saw imperial favor as their own pathway to legal recognition, earthly power and lavish funding.

It's kind of amazing to me how Constantine presided over the Council of Nicea with great power and pomp, pushing the church to adopt the orthodox doctrine of the trinity, despite the fact that he hadn't even been baptized a Christian at that point. No doubt some of the church's miracle stories about Constantine's earlier heavenly vision were intended to paper over that problem, showing that God had indeed chosen and elected him despite his not being a conventional baptised Christian. And Constantine doubtless had no objection to hagiography that turned him into a demigod, something that Roman emperors had long wanted to be.

Also, that it arose and survived because it was superior to the old polytheisms that it replaced.

I don't think that's true. In some ways, yes, but in other ways no. The old paganism might easily have survived had things gone differently. We see examples of what might have resulted today in Indian and Chinese religion.

Hinduism in India isn't unlike the old Greco-Roman syncretistic religion, with its superficial polytheism and its deeper and more monistic philosophical supports. Hinduism is more psychologized than Greek and Roman religion because of the influence of its yogic meditation traditions and it's dramatically different in terms of the caste system.

Traditional Chinese folk religion with its many local gods and its Daoist alchemy and magic isn't dissimilar from the more street-level aspects of the old Greco-Roman paganism either, with Confucianism kind of riding on top among the educated intellectuals like Greek philosophy did further West.
 
Last edited:
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

brough
civilization-overview dot com

Your kind of a smart bastard . There is hope in the world after all . F--ck it is hard to find people that are not plain idiots . It is the harmonization in the stories that gain such wild appeal. See human like patterns . They like patterns they can relate to . You can call it natural selection of a human. So people see them selves in the bible stories . It also shows old fucker fuck up too. That is the real appeal for me . The old fuckers fucking up . There is another element that makes people play it forward . The down trodden . Think about it ? Jesus was an abused step child of a Jewish culture that would stone you for being precocious. It might of all died right there with Jesus except A young good looking abuse wench had taken up the cause . Constantine Mother . Fuchk if the war mongers had any Idea a fucking wench would of ended up with all that power they would of killed her in the early days instead of just raping her .
You don't have the book . The secret book . I am beginning to think no one has it any more . Should I give you the tittle or should I covet it and be bad like my old dead fucking killing , raping relatives. Tribe People the story of Jacob Greathouse is not factual . It is distorted to make Me look bad. Were was I Fuck I forget ? Oh down trodden people rise up and kick sand and dirt in your face cause they can't take the bull shit any more
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival.
Admire? That's not the word I'd use.

An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .
Europe was controlled in large part by the Roman Empire when Christianity was getting out of the starting blocks and thus got its message spread far and wide to a degree few previous belief systems had had. This was then maintained till the European expansion stage in history when we started carving chunks out of the Americas, SE Asia and then Africa. Pretty much everywhere other than China and the asian bit of Russia has, at one point or another in history, been under the control of a European power. We held onto regions long enough to get ingrained into the culture and Christianity has stuck in many places.

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?
Until the splitting of Protestantism the Bible was not owned by most people and Catholic services were done exclusively in Latin. People were burnt at the stake for simply owning a bible in their own language. After all, if your congregation can't read the book for themselves you can tell them whatever you like.

Even now I doubt it's read as much as some Christians like to claim. I have a bible knocking around somewhere, given to me when I was in school, and I'm a staunch atheist and always have been. My family has a copy or two as well and I can't think of anyone in my immediate family who is religious on even a vague level. And yet people like me get counted in the "Owns a bible" category, despite it being firmly in the "Fiction" category from my point of view.

Even those who believe it often don't read it. Other than "In the beginning", "Love thy neighbour" and a few (but rarely all!) of the 10 commandments not a great deal of people can quote much of the bible. Even in the bible thumping bowels of America (which isn't known for its high literacy rates!).

Me-Ki-Gal, put down the crank pipe before you post. For once in your live post something coherent.
 
You realize,don't you, I never stated that Christianity is the oldest religion? Or that it has not undergone some changes?

Perhaps Europe's success had something to do with it being molded by a better-than-the-old-polytheisms instead of being due to "luck" or "accident." In science, luck or accident don't really explain the cause and effect of things . . .

brough
civilization-overview dot com

In science, accident can certainly be part of the equation. If you admit that Christianity isn't the oldest religion, then no special case need be put forth to explain it's longevity.
 
I think the question of Christianity's success should start with why religions succeed.

It's because cultures are necessarily constructed around mythologies. Myth-building is probably one of our oldest philosophical pursuits.

According to Joseph Campbell, myths are one of the most powerful cultural and social agents, if not the most powerful. Modern civilisation would not work very well without modern myths for people to live by; they structure everyone's activities, even those who think they have no effect. In fact you could argue that the belief myths have no effect, is also a myth. They do, and we all have them.

Christianity, and other Abrahamic religion, is and was a more palatable kind of mythology for people to live by. Even in medieval times most people were superstitious as hell, their grasp of Christian doctrine was shallow at best. The important thing was the rise of religious institutions around the Christian mythology--monastries, abbeys and cathedrals, and the clergy. That is, the establishment of a religious elite.

It was able to spread through Europe because it was well organised, it was centered in Rome, and it had a willing band of proselytisers who traveled to faraway places, like Britain. Apart from that, it seems to have been adopted enthusiastically by the pagan cultures it came across. It was quite the success throughout the Pacific; Polynesians were able to connect to the idea of monotheism fairly readily, but they still maintain connections to their more ancient mythologies.

My point being: it isn't the doctrine itself (i.e. the words in the Bible) which is important, it's the fact the Bible exists. That many cultures became Christianised but did so by adapting their pre-existing pagan beliefs, supports the thesis that the doctrine is less important than the existence of a mythology--i.e. the Bible, or any scripture, is a by-product of something more important to us.
 
Last edited:
Circumstance. It emerged in a central point of civilization, one conquered by the largest empire of it's time (the Romans) which helped its spread across Europe and the middle east.
The Europeans later spread it to much of the rest of the world.
It has undergone many changes, and many branches during its time, but had the battle of Tours been lost we would most likely find Islam the dominant religion in Europe and the New World.
 
You realize,don't you, I never stated that Christianity is the oldest religion? Or that it has not undergone some changes?

You did appear to suggest in your subject line and in your first post that it's extraordinary that Christianity has lasted so long. The response was that Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism and other religions are even older. So Christianity's ancient origins aren't all that extraordinary in comparative historical perspective.

The ancient period was the golden age of religion-genesis. Historians of religion talk about "the axial age" around 500 BCE when philosophical Daoism, Confucius, the Buddha, Mahavira, the early Upanishads, the Old Testament canon and Greek philosophy all appeared on the scene in different parts of the world, roughly simultaneously.

Perhaps Europe's success had something to do with it being molded by a better-than-the-old-polytheisms instead of being due to "luck" or "accident."

The superiority of Christianity seems to be your implicit thesis in this thread. That idea needs additional explanation and justification. In what ways was Christianity 'better than the old polytheisms'? What historical connection do you see between some feature(s) of Christianity and Europe's later success?

In science, luck or accident don't really explain the cause and effect of things

Science's cause-and-effect is probably too fine-grained to make much sense of history.

It's true that history is composed of countless physical events, and those physical events occur as the result of physical causality and the regularities that we call 'natural law'. But larger historical events are typically the result of many physical motions, many chemical changes, with countless causal chains influencing one another in often fortuitous and unpredictable ways.

In a dynamical sense, I suspect that we might discover that the time-evolution of a great deal of large-scale historical change is non-linear and chaotic.

When it comes to the behavior of large numbers of tremendously complex human nervous systems massively interacting in societies that in turn shape and reshape those individual motivations in real-time, and with the opportunity for individual decisions to influence other people changing from moment to moment, large-scale causal predictability is apt to be limited. There will likely be "butterfly effects".
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?

brough
civilization-overview dot com



According to Gamaliel Jewish learned man . " What is from man it will soon die away , what is from God you can not destroy . So here we are 2000 latter steel alive
 
According to Gamaliel Jewish learned man . " What is from man it will soon die away , what is from God you can not destroy . So here we are 2000 latter steel alive

But not in the same form. Christianity has splintered and modified itself a number of times, which is probably why it's still around. It's adapted to historical change and need.

"Soon" is a term used as well in the computer gaming world meaning the same thing. "Released soon " could mean next week, or never. Jesus said the end would be soon, and yet here we are 2000+ years later.
 
Even an atheist like myself has good reason to admire the Christian religion because of its vast spread and two millenium survival. An atheist might (and too few do) ask WHY? There has to be a natural cause and effect, scientific explanation. . .
ppl want to believe,
religion makes promises it can't keep, IE 'do this and you will go to heaven',
ppl want to believe all they have to do is 'this' and they will get rewarded,
God is the only one who knows what you should do.(um..and you)

cause and effect? do this/get that..

Also, why has the Bible been the most-read book in the world?
are you talking most read now? or more of a historical context?
either way is susceptible to actual numbers..
but i would suspect as it was said, how many bibles never get read?
i have known some ppl who have never read the bible that can quote scripture as if they have..(mostly pastor's relatives)

--------

It is God that has kept His message going all these centuries. Even in the hands of false followers it can still break through there false doctrines and corruptions and capture the conscience of men.
Exactly.
if you dismiss wisdom because of the religions reputation (with respect to context), you deny God the opportunity to speak to you..
 
Back
Top