What makes christianity so popular?

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2008-01-20 11:01am

When I mean christianity, I mean Judasim, Islam and all other names for the chrisitian god.

What makes it so popular as compared to the greek gods, Norse god, Indian or chinese gods, or even buddhism?

What is the influencing factor that allows the religion founded by the jews to spread to almost all parts of the world?

How the hell did it become the official religion of the same empire that crucified Jesus Christ?

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2008-01-20 11:05am

Sigh, lack of proper thought and edit button...

ADD: Even many other 'religion' is basically a sub religion of the religion first started by the jews.

Even words like thesist or athesist deals primary with a lack of chrisitianity's belief as compared to other religion...

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2008-01-20 11:05am

I'd say the typical brainwashing, terror tactics and the core of the religion demanding others must spread it and 'save the poor non believers'.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2008-01-20 11:08am

Because Jesus loves you, and he'll kill anyone, including you, who says otherwise.

I think one answer as to why it's more popular than Greco-Roman or Norse Gods is that 1) the civilization that gave us the Norse Gods collapsed, and 2) IIRC, Christianity was popular with Roman soldiers, partially because of its similarities to Mithraism.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2008-01-20 12:00pm

Christianity has a number of features which make it an effective competitor in the religion market. When it rose in Rome there was a fairly effective combination of circumstances.

1) The official religion was destroying its credibility with the constant deification of emperors.

2) Christianity was a proselytizing religion, which meant it actively tried to recruit converts.

3) It appealed across class and gender boundaries, allowing everyone to participate fully in it.

4) Christianity was an exclusive religion, meaning that you couldn't be a member of multiple cults. Monotheism is monotheism.

As to why it beat out the Norse religion, it had nothing to due with society collapsing. The Scandinavian countries were centralizing into kingdoms instead of culturally linked communities in the same region and traded extensively with their Christian neighbors, who not only influenced them but preferred to deal with Christians. Scandinavia was also much lower in population than Christian Europe and the ruling class received explicit benefits for converting as Christianity religiously reinforced their position.

Christianity is, simply put, an effective religion when it comes to gaining mass converts. Islam has many similar features and enjoys the same kind of success.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2008-01-20 12:04pm

The only reason it won was because Western Civilization achieved dominance in the "modern" times. If the Arabs hadn't gotten themselves Dark Aged to their current socioeconomically backwards state, we'd all be praying five times a day facing East. Or, if the Chinese hadn't closed themselves up or turned commies, we'd all be Buddhists or be like those dudes from Firefly and speak horribly butchered Mandarin.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-01-20 12:19pm

Right now, part of the popularity is due to inertia - hundreds of millions of people have grown up with it as religion and most folks stick with what they know.

Part of your question is why did Abrahamic monotheism (which is a bit more accurate than calling it "Christianity") suddenly become so popular around a couple hundred AD?

The Jews don't seek converts, they never have. They allow converts but they don't look for them or encourage them. The change happened with the formation of Christianity and it's evangelical command to convert the masses.

But why, you ask, did so many convert?

Well, look at who was converting - mostly the poor, the enslaved, women, etc. Not the powerful guys for whom the old systems brought wealth and power. That's a little odd, because Christianity didn't promise wealth and power in this life, but in the after life. Well, what did the old system promise in the afterlife?

Not much for the average person.

In Ancient Eqypt originally only the Pharaoh was guaranteed an afterlife. You might get lucky enough to be taken along as his eternal servant, but that was hardly an improvement over what you already had. As time went on more and more people had an option at an afterlife, but it cost a lot of money to buy a really nice tomb, equip it, etc. Sure, your relatives could stick you in a sand dune after death and you'd naturally mummify (if scavengers didn't eat you), but what would you have? You'd be "living" under a sand dune with no food, drink, parties, servants, etc. Christianity, however, promised PARADISE with all sorts of goodies and you didn't have to pay for any of it with real-world cash. What a bargain!

In Greece and Rome, if you go back and read their myths, most of the dead wound up in Hades, which was dark and icky and nasty. Didn't matter if you were good or bad or whatever, you went there. A very few people, half-gods or epic heros, managed to earn a better place but let's face it, being half-god or an epic hero wasn't an option open to even most kings and generals, much less the common man (or woman). But Christianity said we ALL go to a Much Better Place and all you have to do is follow these simple rules and show up for a lecture once a week.

In the Norse countries Valhalla was only open to heros who fell in battle. If you went a soldier/raider tough luck. Women, children, and slaves need not apply. Old soldiers/raiders dying in bed were out of luck, too bad. Everyone not going to Valhalla went to Hel - not just the name of a place, but also Loki's daughter and thoroughly, thoroughly creepy critter she was. Hel the place was cold and dark and icky, sort of like Hades in many ways, and it never got better and you never got out. Christianity said you could avoid all that no matter who you were.

So, which option would you choose? A short, hard, miserable life here followed by a cold, dark, icky eternity, or a short, hard, miserable life here followed by an eternity in a Very Good Place Indeed?

Also keep in mind that in the old pagan religions the gods were, at best, indifferent to the common man. If they interfered with your life there was a good chance you'd have all kinds of problems - go back and re-read the myths. Not to mention all the calamities they'd visit on people, and the constant expense of sacrifices and appeasements required. Christianity had a god that not only paid attention to YOU, personally, but that god LOVED you and wanted to HELP you. Wow! Incredible!

Let's not forget that issue of sacrifices - buying sacrificial animals is expensive for the average ancient person. Christianity didn't require blood sacrifice. Some old religions practiced human sacrifice - Christianity didn't. Most people seem to opt for non-human-sacrifice practices, particularly when they powerless and vulnerable and have little say in who would be sacrificed.

Christian worship was open to all, cheaper, easier, and promised a higher payout at the end. What's not to like?

Well, OK - then what was the appeal of Islam?

Some of the same - remember, in the beginning Islam was competing with pagan Arab practices, not so much Jews and Christians. Much of the same applies - open to all, better payout in the afterlife, a god that might reward you for faith and following instead of simply not smiting you down immediately. Some things that seem rather backward to us were actually quite progressive at the time. For example, limiting the number of wives to four - rulers could no longer monopolize hundreds of women leaving lower class men without wives (well, they weren't supposed to have massive harems, we all know a lot of cheating went on). For women - the Koran says a man must support all his wives equally, in the past it had been perfectly acceptable to grossly favor one wife over another. No more human sacrifice, no more putting your firstborn into a fiery idol's furnace... not a bad deal under the circumstances.

So that, to my way of thinking, is how they caught on big time and spread so much, to the point their own momentum helps keep them going today.

Of course, once Abrahamic religions convert enough of the masses the rulers found it politically advantageous to convert themselves, especially with religious authorities starting to promote divine kingship and stuff. When the big, powerful empires were Abrahamic then it became advantageous for outlying rulers to adopt the religions if it gave them better bargaining or business deals. Not unlike the way a lot of people outside Rome learned Latin in the old days, or the way ruling/powerful people learn English and adopt Western attire these days even if the peasents in their countries don't.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2008-01-20 12:36pm

Broomstick wrote:
Well, look at who was converting - mostly the poor, the enslaved, women, etc. Not the powerful guys for whom the old systems brought wealth and power. That's a little odd, because Christianity didn't promise wealth and power in this life, but in the after life. Well, what did the old system promise in the afterlife?

This isn't quite correct. Christianity was popular across the social strata in ancient Rome. Not just the poor and the dispossessed, but the middle class and wealthy. It was very popular in the cities (pagan just means "of the countryside". In other words, where there weren't lots of Christians). It was very mainstream and inclusive.

Islam, which was progressive for its time, also had the advantage of dropping the tax rates in conquered areas, especially if you converted. The effectiveness of the economic incentive shouldn't surprise anyone here.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-20 12:53pm

The Jews don't seek converts, they never have. They allow converts but they don't look for them or encourage them. The change happened with the formation of Christianity and it's evangelical command to convert the masses.

Actually, until the first century or so CE, Jews were very much involved in that sort of thing, and many of the early Jesus-centric groups were very Judaic - it's been estimated that up to 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish at one stage.

Needless to say, the very bad experiences of 70 and 132-5AD, coupled with the rise of an often hostile Christianity very much put the dampers on this.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-20 01:13pm

4) Christianity was an exclusive religion, meaning that you couldn't be a member of multiple cults. Monotheism is monotheism.

Monotheism also has any number of other things going for it over a pantheistic religion. It's considerably more philosophically sophisticated, and so fit much better with the philosophical/scientific consensus of Rome. The Romans also had very unreverential approach to their gods, which made Christianity much more appealing.

But in all seriousness, there's a vast scholarly literature on this. The most recent thing I read which I can really recommend (although it has comparatively little on church structures and development) is by Peter Brown: The Rise of Western Christendom 200-1000. It's on Amazon here, and even it you don't like it, should have a large enough bibliography that you'll be able to find whatever you want.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2008-01-20 01:23pm

1)It's a universal religion, meaning that you don't have to be from a specific tribe, race or culture. (Unlike, say, Greek or Egyptian religion)
2) It's simple, and can be summed up well. (Love your brothers, universal god, covert, 10 commandments).
3)It's a strongly Evangelical religion that also favours large amounts of children.

How the hell did it become the official religion of the same empire that crucified Jesus Christ?

They converted the Emperor, who also used it to rally support in a civil war. Once it became a state religion, things kept rolling on from there

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-20 01:33pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
Broomstick wrote:
Well, look at who was converting - mostly the poor, the enslaved, women, etc. Not the powerful guys for whom the old systems brought wealth and power. That's a little odd, because Christianity didn't promise wealth and power in this life, but in the after life. Well, what did the old system promise in the afterlife?

This isn't quite correct. Christianity was popular across the social strata in ancient Rome. Not just the poor and the dispossessed, but the middle class and wealthy. It was very popular in the cities (pagan just means "of the countryside". In other words, where there weren't lots of Christians). It was very mainstream and inclusive.

Keep in mind that when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, Christianity was still a small but vocal and organized sect even in the cities (it was next to non-existent in the countryside). One fact that helped Christianity along enormously was the fact that Constantine and most of his successors (Julian being an exception) gave Christianity their patronage and support, culminating in Theodosius outright closing the pagan temples. Without that, it's questionable as to whether Christianity would have essentially "conquered" the Eastern Roman Empire, and without that the rest of Europe (since one thing that has traditionally helped conversions from "the top down"- i.e. when a ruler converts and tells his people to convert - is having a big, strong neighbor who happens to be Christian and will cut you a nice deal if you convert.).

Islam, which was progressive for its time, also had the advantage of dropping the tax rates in conquered areas, especially if you converted. The effectiveness of the economic incentive shouldn't surprise anyone here.

I imagine that was a sore point for anyone from the Eastern Empire, and later the Crusades, trying to re-conquer the region. However, it still took considerable time.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-01-20 02:37pm

I think that a big reason that it is both very hostile toward other religions (the Abrahamic religions refuse to accept other gods whilst Norse/greek/roman did so and added to its patheon quite frequently and also the aforemention feeling of duty towards conversion of others. Biggest reason was the hostility towards others that led to more easily converting others. If you convert you have an easier time.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2008-01-20 03:06pm

Guardsman Bass wrote: Keep in mind that when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, Christianity was still a small but vocal and organized sect even in the cities (it was next to non-existent in the countryside). One fact that helped Christianity along enormously was the fact that Constantine and most of his successors (Julian being an exception) gave Christianity their patronage and support, culminating in Theodosius outright closing the pagan temples. Without that, it's questionable as to whether Christianity would have essentially "conquered" the Eastern Roman Empire, and without that the rest of Europe (since one thing that has traditionally helped conversions from "the top down"- i.e. when a ruler converts and tells his people to convert - is having a big, strong neighbor who happens to be Christian and will cut you a nice deal if you convert.).

Christianity was by no means a small religion or unpopular in the Empire the time of Constantine, east or west. Constantine's patronage helped it continue to make gains, but he didn't just pull any old religion out of the hat. It was primarily urban and it lacked organization (being composed of independent congregations and their elected bishops and prone to doctrinal differences) but it was in no way a minor religion in the early 4th Century.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-01-20 03:15pm

An important part of Christianity's appeal that shouldn't be underestimated on this subject is that in many ways, is the ubiquity of its target audience; it is designed to appeal to both traditionalists and radicals over time. It appeals to both the ruling classes as another priesthood and means of gaining authority and it appeals to the common man and the criminal. It importantly appeals to those who are suffering, especially those suffering at the hands of a different religion (like the Hindu caste system and mass conversions out of it to Christianity).

It has adapted to allow for a lot of "pagan joy" with Christian labelling, and is amenable to both secretive cults and large mobs. It's great for times of peace and war for galvanising the community and keeping groups cohesive with a rigid in-out group structure. It's good at brainwashing; everyone is scum but everyone is beautiful, you can break people down to build them back up again. You can give people all sorts of neuroses to do with anything that threatens christianity's domination and potentially divides loyalty; alternate gods and magic, sex, etc.

It's something that is difficult to get rid of and easy to accept.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2008-01-20 04:34pm

I'd say it's because Abrahamic religions had a much more compelling message than most of its rival religions.

Its message is, you don't have to die. You just have to read this book and do all the stuff in it and you get to live forever in a place with no suffering. But it only works if you do all the stuff in the book. And it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor or any of that; as long as you obey the book it'll work just as well for the Emperor and a blind beggar. Also, the Abrahamic God is just naturally a more compelling object of worship than most pagan gods: a perfect being who created the universe is a more compelling object of worship than a bunch of flawed quarrelsome schmucks with superpowers. I mean look at Zeus; he basically spends most of his time trying to score chicks, his persona just doesn't lend itself to being held in the same awe that the Abrahamic God is by His followers.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2008-01-20 06:45pm

In concept, it appeals to everyone (and remember, what seems to us cruel brutal and nasty, when Christianity was on the rise, really wasn't that bad) much like the Cult of Isis, which was similarly popular and 'subversive' in rome at some times, not to mention universal in scope (the Roman Isis was essentially all-powerful and monotheistic in many respects, claiming, much as Judaism did, that other gods were lesser reflections of Her) but is also staunchly patriarchical (and much harder for the Romans, as was their wont, to call sexually indecent!) and of considerably greater appeal as a tool for the rulers in society.

It also has a very nasty hell concept for keeping worshippers in line. Your afterlife won't just be cold and nasty, it will be the worst imaginable torment forever.

Davey · Post by **Davey** » 2008-01-20 08:47pm

[tone="sarcasm" magnitude="extreme"]Because God is on their side.[/tone]

Hey, it's the only illogical way to explain it, right?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-21 02:53am

Androsphinx wrote:
4) Christianity was an exclusive religion, meaning that you couldn't be a member of multiple cults. Monotheism is monotheism.
Monotheism also has any number of other things going for it over a pantheistic religion. It's considerably more philosophically sophisticated, and so fit much better with the philosophical/scientific consensus of Rome. The Romans also had very unreverential approach to their gods, which made Christianity much more appealing.

But in all seriousness, there's a vast scholarly literature on this. The most recent thing I read which I can really recommend (although it has comparatively little on church structures and development) is by Peter Brown: The Rise of Western Christendom 200-1000. It's on Amazon here, and even it you don't like it, should have a large enough bibliography that you'll be able to find whatever you want.

Your post reeks of bullshit. Care to explain why the fuck monotheism is intrinsically more "philosophically sophisticated" than polytheism?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-21 02:56am

As for the subject, the appeal of Christianity is simple: it allows you to judge your neighbour while being exempt from judgement yourself. This is the core of its appeal: the fact that every believer gets a "get out of jail free" card for his own misdeeds and moral failings while simultaneously believing that he has an elevated right to dictate morality to his neighbours.

In short, the primary benefit of Christianity is codified hypocrisy. It allows everyone to be a hypocrite ... and proud of it.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-21 02:59am

Imperial Overlord wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote: Keep in mind that when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, Christianity was still a small but vocal and organized sect even in the cities (it was next to non-existent in the countryside). One fact that helped Christianity along enormously was the fact that Constantine and most of his successors (Julian being an exception) gave Christianity their patronage and support, culminating in Theodosius outright closing the pagan temples. Without that, it's questionable as to whether Christianity would have essentially "conquered" the Eastern Roman Empire, and without that the rest of Europe (since one thing that has traditionally helped conversions from "the top down"- i.e. when a ruler converts and tells his people to convert - is having a big, strong neighbor who happens to be Christian and will cut you a nice deal if you convert.).

Christianity was by no means a small religion or unpopular in the Empire the time of Constantine, east or west. Constantine's patronage helped it continue to make gains, but he didn't just pull any old religion out of the hat. It was primarily urban and it lacked organization (being composed of independent congregations and their elected bishops and prone to doctrinal differences) but it was in no way a minor religion in the early 4th Century.

It was, what, 6% of the Empire when Constantine took the throne? It's not some tiny sect, but it was small in comparison to the number of pagans.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-01-21 03:49am

I always thought that the primary reason why Christianity is so popular is because you can be as bad in life as you want but so long as you say, "I'm sorry God" before you die, you have a decent chance of getting into heaven.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-01-21 05:26am

If you look at the history of the religion, I think it becomes pretty apparent that Christianity owes a lot of its success to European cultures who believed in spreading the faith. When Europeans were sailing to "new" and distant places, they never hesitated to start converting the so called pagans, and it was often by force. Many cultures had much to gain by converting to the religion of the men with swords made from steel.

Today, just about every major branch of Christianity still places a heavy emphasis on evangelism. There are missionaries all over the world "saving" people and showing them how to get into heaven.

Monotheism also has any number of other things going for it over a pantheistic religion. It's considerably more philosophically sophisticated, and so fit much better with the philosophical/scientific consensus of Rome. The Romans also had very unreverential approach to their gods, which made Christianity much more appealing.

Ummm, yeah right. You realize that there are plenty of modern cultures who never took on a monotheistic religion? Rome was Rome, not the human race. Monotheism is not the ultimate outcome of a polytheistic system, no matter how many idiot Christians think so.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-01-21 06:06am

Ummm, yeah right. You realize that there are plenty of modern cultures who never took on a monotheistic religion? Rome was Rome, not the human race. Monotheism is not the ultimate outcome of a polytheistic system, no matter how many idiot Christians think so.

Your post reeks of bullshit. Care to explain why the fuck monotheism is intrinsically more "philosophically sophisticated" than polytheism?

Because the Aristotelian view of God - Active Intellect, First Cause, etc. fit much better with a single, transcendent deity (especially one clearly identified as a Creator) than with the Greco-Roman mishmash.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2008-01-21 06:19am

Despite the proclaimed advantages of monotheism, there's also the long-established practice of creating Saints and additional angels that basically act as minor gods in their own right, receive prayers and some amount of worship, much like polytheistic religions. Basically, most major religions evolve to become a mishmash of monotheism and polytheism with varying degrees of one or the other.