Challenge: Christian majority world

[tom]

Make a non-ASB ATL where the percentage of the world's population who are Christians in the year 2012 is >=51%

[twovultures]

Islam either never develops, or stays stuck in a small area. Missionaries spread Orthodox and Catholic Christianity to the middle east and North Africa, while sects deemed heretical like the Nestorians create refugee movements that spread Christianity through Asia. A large slice of the population that IOTL would have become Islamic becomes Christian, and boom! Majority religion.

[MNP]

Islam either never develops, or stays stuck in a small area. Missionaries spread Orthodox and Catholic Christianity to the middle east and North Africa, while sects deemed heretical like the Nestorians create refugee movements that spread Christianity through Asia. A large slice of the population that IOTL would have become Islamic becomes Christian, and boom! Majority religion.Entirely possible. If the Sassanids collapse internally around the same time, Christianity might someday dominate Persia.

That would be an interesting timeline.

[Willmatron]

I think Harry Turtledove had a book where Mohamed became a Christian. That may make all the difference. If Christianity is spread the same way as Islam. And if the Taiping rebellion was successful and the leader hadn't gone off the deep end.

[mojojojo]

I think Harry Turtledove had a book where Mohamed became a Christian. That may make all the difference. If Christianity is spread the same way as Islam. And if the Taiping rebellion was successful and the leader hadn't gone off the deep end.
But didn't the Zoroastrians still have a sizable chunk of the world in that TL?

[Milarqui]

It is Agent of Byzantium. It is quite the fun book, and the main character is a sort of James Bond that travels the world trying to solve problems that afflict the Roman Empire (the Eastern one). And yes, Zoroastrianism is the major religion in Persia.

[Simreeve]

I think Harry Turtledove had a book where Mohamed became a Christian. That may make all the difference. If Christianity is spread the same way as Islam.
'Agent of Byzantium', with Mohammed having been not only a Christian but eventually an Archbishop (of Seville?) and canonised.. but not starting a further spread of Christianity in the same way that his OTL version started the spread of Islam.

But didn't the Zoroastrians still have a sizable chunk of the world in that TL?Yes, because the Sassanid Empire still survived. It was (in the [13th? 14th?] century AD, when the stories were set) in a 'cold war' with the Byzantines, with a frontier along roughly the same line as the OTL pre-Islamic one, but we were never told how far east beyond Persia itself Sassanid rule or influence extended

[mojojojo]

Yes, because the Sassanid Empire still survived. It was (in the [13th? 14th?] century AD, when the stories were set) in a 'cold war' with the Byzantines, with a frontier along roughly the same line as the OTL pre-Islamic one, but we were never told how far east beyond Persia itself Sassanid rule or influence extended
I know the novel also mentioned nomads that followed an animistic religion

[mikegold]

I know the novel also mentioned nomads that followed an animistic religion

Yeah, but it's still the 13th Century IIRC. Not really different from OTL.

[twovultures]

I think even without a Sassanid collapse, Christianity could sneak into Persia the same way it snuck into Rome-through converting the lower classes, and building up from there.

Alternatively, converting the Persian heathens could be a good basis for a Crusade once Christianity becomes institutionalized in the Middle East and its religious/political leaders need to find some religious reason to bash their potential Zoroastrian enemies with.

[FellowNerd]

You can get Japan, though a variety of PoD. Such as delaying the Tokugawa Shogunate persecution of Christianity. The longer the delay the stronger the Christians are and the more likely they can resist/overthrow the Shogun.

Also, if Arabia stays Christian then the Arabian traders could have exported Christianity to southeast Asia through trading like they did OTL with Islam.

[Falecius]

I think even without a Sassanid collapse, Christianity could sneak into Persia the same way it snuck into Rome-through converting the lower classes, and building up from there.

Alternatively, converting the Persian heathens could be a good basis for a Crusade once Christianity becomes institutionalized in the Middle East and its religious/political leaders need to find some religious reason to bash their potential Zoroastrian enemies with.

It did OTL. Sasanid Persia had a sizeable Christian minority, with a complex relationship with the Mazdaic ruling group ranging from co-opting to persecution. Without Islam, it is conceivable (though not guaranteed) that in time Persia becomes majority Christian as it became Muslim OTL. The impact of this alone could be enough to fit the bill of OP.
However, Persian Christianity has good chances to be different and hostile to any form of Christianity becomes prevalent in the ERE or its successor states in any case.

[The Ubbergeek]

The problem is, it opens a door ALSO for a strong containder in the east. Buddhism.

There was buddhists in central asia, modern afghanistan. No islam, buddhism may go west too, into persian lands...

[Wolfpaw]

And if the Taiping rebellion was successful and the leader hadn't gone off the deep end.He was off the deep end before it even started. Hong was nuttier than a fruitcake and the Taiping religion was about as Christian as Islam.

[Falecius]

The problem is, it opens a door ALSO for a strong containder in the east. Buddhism.

There was buddhists in central asia, modern afghanistan. No islam, buddhism may go west too, into persian lands...

Well, it may play out in several ways. But I suppose that Christianity may follow a pattern similar to OTL Islam. Buddhism had a lot of time to expand into Persia proper, and was remarkably less successful at it than Christianity, which had less time.
Of course it is not a given in any possible world.

[Muwatalli']

The major challenge here to make sure either China or India has a larger Christian community.

[mikegold]

Alternatively, converting the Persian heathens could be a good basis for a Crusade once Christianity becomes institutionalized in the Middle East and its religious/political leaders need to find some religious reason to bash their potential Zoroastrian enemies with.

Crusade isn't the right term, and neither the Byzantines nor the Copts thought this way historically. It's not impossible that an East Roman or Middle East Christian polity could evolve into an aggressive exporter of Christianity by force, but it's anything but foreordained.

[MAlexMatt]

Isn't OTL relatively close already? I think there are...what? 2 billion Christians already?

Tip the scales a little bit everywhere and you can easily get another billion. A couple hundred more million in China, India, Africa, and the Middle East each and you're there.

[Wolfpaw]

Crusade isn't the right term, and neither the Byzantines nor the Copts thought this way historically.Basically nobody outside of Western Christendom did except for folks like the Svans (whose word for "crusade" is actually closer to "jihad"), but Caucasian peoples are always kind of an outlier, so...It's not impossible that an East Roman or Middle East Christian polity could evolve into an aggressive exporter of Christianity by force, but it's anything but foreordained.Well the Byzantines are going to have a rough time of it since their introspective faith tended to gore itself over things like icons and navel-gazing.

A bunch of restless Arab nomads, on the other hand....

[Elfwine]

Isn't OTL relatively close already? I think there are...what? 2 billion Christians already?

Tip the scales a little bit everywhere and you can easily get another billion. A couple hundred more million in China, India, Africa, and the Middle East each and you're there.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

You need to tip the scales more than "a little bit" to get tens of millions of converts, let alone hundreds.

[MAlexMatt]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

"Easily" getting another billion would be rather difficult given where you'd have to get it from.

You need to tip the scales more than "a little bit" to get tens of millions of converts.

Over the course of centuries it's not that much. Converting ten million people in China in 1600 means hundreds of millions in 2000.

[Elfwine]

Over the course of centuries it's not that much. Converting ten million people in China in 1600 means hundreds of millions in 2000.

Assuming that people stay Christian, assuming that those numbers expand (just because my ancestors way-back-when were probably Protestant doesn't mean I am, to use a personal example), assuming that it's easy to get that many converts in the first place in 1600 . . .

I wouldn't say this is ASB, just exceeedingly unlikely. Why are people going to decide to convert on such a large scale?

[Jello_Biafra]

I think even without a Sassanid collapse, Christianity could sneak into Persia the same way it snuck into Rome-through converting the lower classes, and building up from there.

Alternatively, converting the Persian heathens could be a good basis for a Crusade once Christianity becomes institutionalized in the Middle East and its religious/political leaders need to find some religious reason to bash their potential Zoroastrian enemies with.
It had already been in Persia for centuries. It wasn't going anywhere without major social upheaval and a Christian ruling class.

It took centuries to Islamicize Persia because Zoroastrianism functions much the same way as Christianity or Islam, and they can all have mass appeal. Hell, Christianity exists much because of Zoroastrian influences in ancient Judaism.

Satan as an Archdevil, as well as good and bad afterlives, came to Judaism from Zoroastrianism.

[MAlexMatt]

Assuming that people stay Christian, assuming that those numbers expand (just because my ancestors way-back-when were probably Protestant doesn't mean I am, to use a personal example), assuming that it's easy to get that many converts in the first place in 1600 . . .

I wouldn't say this is ASB, just exceeedingly unlikely. Why are people going to decide to convert on such a large scale?

Isn't all alternate historical speculation about assuming things will work out a certain way?

[Wolfpaw]

Satan as an Archdevil, as well as good and bad afterlives, came to Judaism from Zoroastrianism.Same with the idea of a garden with the two original humans in it, a messiah, a judgement day, devils, etc.

Zoroastrianism is basically the root of both the Abrahamic faiths and Vedic Hinduism.

[Elfwine]

Isn't all alternate historical speculation about assuming things will work out a certain way?

The problem is when that "certain way" is jumping from improbable event to even more improbable outcome.

Why are ten million Chinese going to convert to Christianity in 1600? "More successful missionary work" is not a POD, it's something in need of a POD to occur.

And yes, flukes happen, but the conversion of millions is going to take more than a fluke in any circumstances resembling OTL.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

South Korea is going fairly heavily Evangelical Protestant, which shows that it is at least possible in a modernizing Confucian traditionally Dharmic state.

Getting that to happen in China would be ... tough.

If Ricci had convinced the Pope to allow a Chinese rite of Catholicism (to over simplify), there might have been a chance to convert sizable chunks of the upper classes, which might MIGHT then trickle down.


Another possibility is that the Arabs under *Mohammed latch on to something explicitly Christian (say Nestorianism, or Monophysitism) and take over Persia and as much of the world as OTL Islam did (heck, it could still even be CALLED Islam). Having a 'heretical' sect like that would still allow the political split between Dar Al-Islam and Rome, which is probably a pre-condition for that expansion.

[oberdada]

Why are ten million Chinese going to convert to Christianity in 1600? "More successful missionary work" is not a POD, it's something in need of a POD to occur.

I read recently,but I can't remember where and if this was a reliabal source, that Jesuits managed to impress a chinese Emporor with some knowledge quite a bit so that he was close to converting, but didn't, because of the monogamy thing.
So with a bit flexibility there might be the POD.

[Elfwine]

I read recently,but I can't remember where and if this was a reliabal source, that Jesuits managed to impress a chinese Emporor with some knowledge quite a bit so that he was close to converting, but didn't, because of the monogamy thing.
So with a bit flexibility there might be the POD.

For discussion's sake, let's say it could happen.

Will people really follow suit? Will it last?

[WhatIsAUserName]

For discussion's sake, let's say it could happen.

Will people really follow suit? Will it last?

In a short word: No. Chinese Emperors took the religion of their subjects, not the other way around. Chinese Emperors never, or almost never, attempted to impose a religion on the Chinese people.

In a longer word: Unlikely. The Ming Emperors I don't think ever showed much interest in Christianity while they were in power, while the Qing Emperors were mostly followers of Tibetan Buddhism.

However, if we were to look at the last (and only) foreign religion to become a major part of Chinese religion, ie Buddhism, a similar circumstance might result in more Christians. Buddhism entered China during the Han Dynasty but didn't become major until the fall of the Han and the period of resulting division. If the division of China lasts longer after the Ming, splitting the country and causing more chaos, then the dissatisfaction with China's religious trends might occur. Then, if foreign missionaries aim to evangelize to the masses (the Jesuits never did this, hoping for a trickle-down effect after converting the Emperors, and trickle-down didn't work this time), perhaps a mass movement of Chinese Christianity could occur. This definitely won't be a quick process, but I imagine it might produce a few hundred million nominal Christians.

[Falecius]

Another possibility is that the Arabs under *Mohammed latch on to something explicitly Christian (say Nestorianism, or Monophysitism) and take over Persia and as much of the world as OTL Islam did (heck, it could still even be CALLED Islam). Having a 'heretical' sect like that would still allow the political split between Dar Al-Islam and Rome, which is probably a pre-condition for that expansion.

I wrote a skech on those lines years ago for CCT.
I'd probably find it implausible if I reread it now, though, not to mention bad English.
However, it might work. A form of Miaphysism seems the best bet to me.

[oberdada]

For discussion's sake, let's say it could happen.

Will people really follow suit? Will it last?

In a short word: No. Chinese Emperors took the religion of their subjects, not the other way around. Chinese Emperors never, or almost never, attempted to impose a religion on the Chinese people.

Let's not consider imposing, but simply giving Christianity a bridgehead (does this word exist in English?) in 17th century China.

[ComradeHuxley]

I read recently,but I can't remember where and if this was a reliabal source, that Jesuits managed to impress a chinese Emporor with some knowledge quite a bit so that he was close to converting, but didn't, because of the monogamy thing.
So with a bit flexibility there might be the POD.

I guess you mean this? He did convert thou:

This happened in the late 1640s, when the last emperor of the Ming loyalist regime (or Southern Ming), Zhu Youlang - also known as the Yongli emperor after his reign title - converted to Roman Catholicism partly in the hope of receiving aid from the European states (especially the Portuguese) against the Manchus who had by now conquered almost all of China. Zhu Youlang's family and much of his court seems to have converted along with him, and his official mother (i.e., his father's official wife, but not his natural mother) Empress Dowager Wang was baptized as Helena. His natural mother Lady Ma was baptized as Maria, while his wife Empress Wang was baptized as Anna. Matteo Ricci had nothing to do with the conversion (he was already dead at this time); rather, Zhu Youlang and his family were converted and baptized by the German Jesuit Andreas Xavier Koffler (who died in 1652).

In 1650, Zhu Youlang's court entrusted the Polish Jesuit Michal Boym with the mission of bringing letters from himself and the Empress Dowager to the Pope, the Doge of Venice, and the King of Portugal. These letters were primarily requests for military aid against the Manchus. Boym's mission was exceptionally difficult and dangerous, because the Venetians and Portuguese were both inclined to abandon the seemingly hopeless Ming loyalist cause and concentrate on developing trade relations with the victorious Manchus. Even the leaders of the Jesuit Order did not approve of getting involved in the Ming-Qing conflict. Boym had to wait until 1655, when the new pope Alexander VII was elected, to get a positive response from the Vatican. Even then, the pope did not offer any practical support, only a letter expressing sympathy and blessing for the Ming loyalist court. With this letter, Boym was able to secure a promise of military aid from the Portuguese king, but again it was only a promise without any practical action taken.

Nonetheless, Boym began his return journey to China and reached Vietnam (then known as Dai Viet) in 1658. He then tried to reach Zhu Youlang's court in Yunnan by travelling through Guangxi, but died en route in 1659. Zhu Youlang and his court fled to Burma in 1661, but the Burmese king handed him over to Wu Sangui (who was now serving the Manchus) in 1662 and Wu put him to death.

On Zhu Youlang, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Youlang
On Michal Boym and his diplomatic mission, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Boym
To read a 1650 letter from Empress Dowager Helena to the Pope, carried by Michal Boym to the Vatican and now kept in its archives, see http://asv.vatican.va/en/visit/doc/zoom04.html

In the case of Empress Dowager Wang (Helena) and Zhu Youlang, there is no evidence that their conversions to Christianity caused any division in the Ming loyalist court. One loyalist minister did object to Zhu Youlang's replacement of the Ming empire's official Datong calendar with the Gregorian calendar (which the minister referred to as a 'barbarian calendar' 夷曆) on Andreas Xavier Koffler's recommendation, arguing that this was a violation of ancestral traditions, with the result that Zhu Youlang changed back to using the Datong calendar (this incident is recorded in the Veritable Record of the Yongli Reign or Yongli Shilu, written by the Ming loyalist scholar Wang Fuzhi). But this was a problem of cultural conservatism and chauvinism rather than religious conflict. Also, because Koffler was esteemed as a mentor by the powerful eunuch Pang Tianshou (baptized Achilleus Pang), his position in the loyalist court remained safe until his death in 1652.

Interestingly, by this time (the late 1640s) the Qing regime had adopted a revised and updated version of the Datong calendar, which was originally developed in the early 1630s by the Jesuit Johann Adam Schall von Bell and the learned Christian convert Xu Guangqi (Paul Xu) by incorporating European astronomical knowledge. This revised calendar was called the Chongzhen calendar until the fall of the Ming empire, but was never officially adopted by the Ming court due to opposition from conservative courtiers and preoccupation with the Manchu and rebel threats. Adam Schall then became an advisor to the Shunzhi emperor of Qing, who adopted the Chongzhen calendar in 1645 under the new name 'Shixian calendar'. This is the version of Chinese calendar that is still used today. The Gregorian calendar was not adopted by another Chinese regime until 1912, when the Republic of China did so.

[WhatIsAUserName]

I guess you mean this? He did convert thou:

I've looked into that, and I'm pretty sure it was not the Emperor (or pretender, depending on how you view the Yongli Emperor) who converted, but rather his mother and his wife.

[Advernt]

I'd still imagine the easiest way for a Christian majority world is a No Islam World. Any such world would very likely be 60%+ Christian, though probably of dozens of different denominations and variants.

For instance, if Christanity reached Malay South East Asia in the same manner Islam did OTL, more likely, it'd be of the Monophysite, or Nestorian variant. If, indeed the butterflies doesn't prevent Western European States from eventually ruling these areas, I'd imagine that OTL Muslim Majority regions under Colonial rule might be regarded as being populated by heretic Denominations of Christianity.

So, yes, start with a No Islam World, and I'd imagine that Christianity might spread along the same areas where Islam would have pre-dominated, perhaps slower. The problem is, I'd imagine that the various sects of Christianity might well be quite hostile to one another, until any Industrial Revolution equivalent.

Ultimately though, have a world where everything goes right for Christianity, and you may well have sizable (15-40%+) Christian Minorities in India and the East Asian Countries. And even Christian Majorities in some of these areas.

[Elfwine]

But would Christianity reach those areas just as well, and be just as appealing?

Eliminating Islam doesn't mean Christianity is drawn into the situation, especially in the areas where other faiths were a serious contender vs. Islam.

[Advernt]

But would Christianity reach those areas just as well, and be just as appealing?

Eliminating Islam doesn't mean Christianity is drawn into the situation, especially in the areas where other faiths were a serious contender vs. Islam.

Islam had to compete against a Pre-existing presence of Hinduism and Buddhism in South-East Asia alone. It depends really on which denomination pre-dominates the OTL Middle-Eastern region - likely, Monophysites in the Levant, and Nestorians in Persia.

But still, it's not inconceivable for some Sufi-equivalent variant of Christian prostrelyzation in the regions where Islam in OTL gained a majority.

But that answer to that question probably lies in why exactly such a large Islamic Community arose in India and South-East Asia to begin with. Certainly, conquest might have played a part, as did Trade in India, but apparently, Islam reached the masses via Sufi Missionaries. I cannot see why intrinsically why Persian Christian Evangelical, Monastic orders may not find similar success too in this OTL.

So, then what was the appeal of Islam to begin with, and would Christianity have the same appeal? I'm inclined to say yes, there's no reason why the same factors cannot exist in Christianity, and more.

[Falecius]

Islam had to compete against a Pre-existing presence of Hinduism and Buddhism in South-East Asia alone. It depends really on which denomination pre-dominates the OTL Middle-Eastern region - likely, Monophysites in the Levant, and Nestorians in Persia.

But still, it's not inconceivable for some Sufi-equivalent variant of Christian prostrelyzation in the regions where Islam in OTL gained a majority.

But that answer to that question probably lies in why exactly such a large Islamic Community arose in India and South-East Asia to begin with. Certainly, conquest might have played a part, as did Trade in India, but apparently, Islam reached the masses via Sufi Missionaries. I cannot see why intrinsically why Persian Christian Evangelical, Monastic orders may not find similar success too in this OTL.

So, then what was the appeal of Islam to begin with, and would Christianity have the same appeal? I'm inclined to say yes, there's no reason why the same factors cannot exist in Christianity, and more.

There is a problem. Christianity was, ideologically, more averse to trade than islam was on average. I think that it may at least slow down expansion into SE Asia. As for India, you'd need to Christianise those Central Asians tribes who Conquered the Indo-Gangetic plain as Muslims IOTL. There were nestorian groups OTL, so it seems doable. However, no Islam alone does give Christianity a lesser space than the sum of Islam and Chistianity OTL, though probably enough to be majority if you play it well.

[tom]

Same with the idea of a garden with the two original humans in it, a messiah, a judgement day, devils, etc.

Zoroastrianism is basically the root of both the Abrahamic faiths and Vedic Hinduism.
WOW! If Zoroastrianism is basically the root of Vedic Hinduism, then it is also the root of Buddhism as well. Throw in the three Abrahamic faiths (four is you separate Mormonism) and you have something like 75% of the human race.

[Elfwine]

Islam had to compete against a Pre-existing presence of Hinduism and Buddhism in South-East Asia alone. It depends really on which denomination pre-dominates the OTL Middle-Eastern region - likely, Monophysites in the Levant, and Nestorians in Persia.

But still, it's not inconceivable for some Sufi-equivalent variant of Christian prostrelyzation in the regions where Islam in OTL gained a majority.

Because . . . why? And how did the Nestorians just dominate Persia in the absence of Islam?


But that answer to that question probably lies in why exactly such a large Islamic Community arose in India and South-East Asia to begin with. Certainly, conquest might have played a part, as did Trade in India, but apparently, Islam reached the masses via Sufi Missionaries. I cannot see why intrinsically why Persian Christian Evangelical, Monastic orders may not find similar success too in this OTL.

So, then what was the appeal of Islam to begin with, and would Christianity have the same appeal? I'm inclined to say yes, there's no reason why the same factors cannot exist in Christianity, and more.

First you have to develop those "Persian Christian Evangelical, Monastic orders". They're not going to exist just because Islam doesn't.

I see no reason why we should assume Christianity would share the factors that made conversion to Islam appealing just because, which this appears to do.

Frankly, it seems to be based on the idea that Christianity would naturally prevail, in general.

[Kaiphranos]

Hmm. I guess the other way to do it would be to have a global nuclear war or other catastrophe where the majority of the survivors happen to be Christians...

(It wouldn't even have to be a massively Christian world to start with: take the stereotypical "advanced China, backwards Europe" as a starting point, then have a war between China and a Chinese-descended state in the Americas...)

[WhatIsAUserName]

Same with the idea of a garden with the two original humans in it, a messiah, a judgement day, devils, etc.

Zoroastrianism is basically the root of both the Abrahamic faiths and Vedic Hinduism.

Are you sure about the garden part? I looked into it a little bit, and it seems that Mashya and Mashyana were created from a plant or tree, a la Ask and Embla, and I can't find anything about a garden.

Besides, your latter statement is an exaggeration: while the dating of the Vedas is unclear, they might have arisen before, after, or about the same time as the Gathas, so it would be unfair to attribute to the influence of Zoroastrianism what is really a common Indo-Iranian root on Hinduism. In fact, same thing with some parts of Zoroastrian's influence on Christianity and Islam: I'm pretty sure the devils (and angels) aren't unique to Zoroastrianism. As for Judaism, at it's core, it's basically a monotheistic offshoot of Semitic polytheism.

As for Buddhism, I think the Zoroastrian influence can be seen with the Buddha Maitreya and the Pure Land Sukhavati, though other influences escape me at the moment. I'm not sure if Maitreya has been proved to come from the Indian Mitra or the Iranian Mithra, or from both.

[Alexius I Kommenos]

Are you sure about the garden part? I looked into it a little bit, and it seems that Mashya and Mashyana were created from a plant or tree, a la Ask and Embla, and I can't find anything about a garden.

Besides, your latter statement is an exaggeration: while the dating of the Vedas is unclear, they might have arisen before, after, or about the same time as the Gathas, so it would be unfair to attribute to the influence of Zoroastrianism what is really a common Indo-Iranian root on Hinduism. In fact, same thing with some parts of Zoroastrian's influence on Christianity and Islam: I'm pretty sure the devils (and angels) aren't unique to Zoroastrianism. As for Judaism, at it's core, it's basically a monotheistic offshoot of Semitic polytheism.

As for Buddhism, I think the Zoroastrian influence can be seen with the Buddha Maitreya and the Pure Land Sukhavati, though other influences escape me at the moment. I'm not sure if Maitreya has been proved to come from the Indian Mitra or the Iranian Mithra, or from both.
Well Hinduism and Zoroastrianism originated at roughly the same time and both are very similar to each other. However one big difference is in Hinduism Asuras are evil and Devas are good while in Zororastrianism Asuras are good and Devas are evil. THier are other differences but this is a major one.

[Admiral Matt]

Besides, your latter statement is an exaggeration: while the dating of the Vedas is unclear, they might have arisen before, after, or about the same time as the Gathas, so it would be unfair to attribute to the influence of Zoroastrianism what is really a common Indo-Iranian root on Hinduism. In fact, same thing with some parts of Zoroastrian's influence on Christianity and Islam: I'm pretty sure the devils (and angels) aren't unique to Zoroastrianism. As for Judaism, at it's core, it's basically a monotheistic offshoot of Semitic polytheism.

Actually, if you look at it closely, you find that the Eastern Semites were originally monotheistic. The Mesopotamian pantheons were aglomerations of each city's personal deity, formed as religious support for political empires of more than one city. Judaism just held out for their personal God after the others had given up and compromised (or been wiped out by the Hebrews: some of the neighbors the Lord commanded them to genocide in the Holy Land were probably still monotheistic).

As for angels, they certainly aren't a unique phenomena, granted. That said, the historical record is pretty clear that they entered mainstream Judaism at the end of the Babylonian captivity, when Cyrus permitted the refounding of the Temple. There was a conflict initially over the issue between the (angel-less) Jews who had stayed behind and the return migrants.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Actually, if you look at it closely, you find that the Eastern Semites were originally monotheistic. The Mesopotamian pantheons were aglomerations of each city's personal deity, formed as religious support for political empires of more than one city. Judaism just held out for their personal God after the others had given up and compromised (or been wiped out by the Hebrews: some of the neighbors the Lord commanded them to genocide in the Holy Land were probably still monotheistic).


Are you sure though? What about the conflation of El/Elohim with YHWH, or references to Asherah, or references to other gods in the Hebrew Bible? Ps 82:1 and Gen 1:26 are the ones that spring to my mind immediately.

[Wolfpaw]

Judaism was originally a henotheistic Semitic tribal religion which became more and more monotheistic as it became grew attached to a Mesopotamian thunder God. Also, they heavily aped their Babylonian rulers' swinophobia and were greatly influenced by Babylonian law.

Too, Hindu reverence for cows and the the priestly ingestion of soma (or "homa" in the Avestas) comes from Zoroastrianism.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Judaism was originally a henotheistic Semitic tribal religion which became more and more monotheistic as it became grew attached to a Mesopotamian thunder God. Also, they heavily aped their Babylonian rulers' swinophobia and were greatly influenced by Babylonian law.

Too, Hindu reverence for cows and the the priestly ingestion of soma (or "homa" in the Avestas) comes from Zoroastrianism.

Okay, first, so the initial role of Asherah in Judaism would come after the original henotheism, if that's to be believed? Second, how can you be sure that cow reverence and soma/haoma stems from specifically Zoroastrianism as opposed to Proto-Indo-Iranian?

[Avitus]

I think that everyone is getting too hung up on the Christian-Islam rivalry, and not exploring other avenues. Another concievable scenario would be a world in which Protestantism and Cotholicism are reconciled before the division becomes too great, resulting in a nominally Catholic religion, but with appropriate reforms to mitigate corruption and Italian centrism. This could result in the reformed Christianity, as a common factor in all western nations, being more heavily exported throughout the colonial era along with the other western ideals (since westernism is essentially prevalent nowadays). If, as OTL, the Americas, Africa, India, Australia, and all the various parts of Asia and the Middle east are colonised, the increased focus on missionaries could claim a majority for Christianity in Africa, Australia, and the Americas (since that did happen in the Americas and Australia, and Africa is about 33% despite being colonised after secularization), and minorities up to 40% in India and the Asian colonies (which all have significant Christian minorities now,). The middle east would probably yeild fewer converts, but I could see some, maybe in the range of 10% tops.

So, basically, Christianity that is associated intimately with western identity for longer could be spread to more of the colonies, since while it was heavily proselytized it did exceedingly well, but post 1800 the european nations seperated church and state. That and butterflied communism would probably push it past the 50% mark by a bit, especially if the western nations ever get around to supporting a Christian claimant in China.

[Wolfpaw]

Okay, first, so the initial role of Asherah in Judaism would come after the original henotheism, if that's to be believed? Second, how can you be sure that cow reverence and soma/haoma stems from specifically Zoroastrianism as opposed to Proto-Indo-Iranian?The first records of its teachers were in the Avestas. Zoroaster is pretty clear about how cows are holy and that humans are there for cows, not the other way around.

And Judaism was henotheistic in that it acknowledged other peoples as having gods that were no less real than Yahweh, but they were other people's gods, which is kind of a no-go in tribal sects. For what it's worth, Jews had basically become monotheistic ("there is One God, our god") by the Hellenistic Era.

[WhatIsAUserName]

The first records of its teachers were in the Avestas. Zoroaster is pretty clear about how cows are holy and that humans are there for cows, not the other way around.

And Judaism was henotheistic in that it acknowledged other peoples as having gods that were no less real than Yahweh, but they were other people's gods, which is kind of a no-go in tribal sects. For what it's worth, Jews had basically become monotheistic ("there is One God, our god") by the Hellenistic Era.

You didn't answer my questions: what proof is there that sacred cows from Zoroastrianism and not Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and was there worship of Asherah alongside YHWH?

In my personal opinion, I consider any worldview that accepts multiple gods as polytheism, but at the same time, did the ancient Jews worship only YHWH, or worship him alongside Asherah and other gods? After all, there's at least a few historical sources (in what now comprise the Hebrew Gospel) about Jews worshiping several deities.

[Iori]

Isn't OTL relatively close already? I think there are...what? 2 billion Christians already?

Tip the scales a little bit everywhere and you can easily get another billion. A couple hundred more million in China, India, Africa, and the Middle East each and you're there.

More than half of Africa IOTL is Christian, even if you got the two Majority Indigenous countries (South Sudan, Togo and Madagascar) to be Christian and further Christianized the Syncretic Religions in Central and Southern Africa, you'd not have that many, and considering the remainder of Africa follows a religion that it's going to be nigh impossible to get people to convert from en masse.

The below map is telling at just how Wanked Christianity is as it is;

[Elfwine]

I think that everyone is getting too hung up on the Christian-Islam rivalry, and not exploring other avenues. Another concievable scenario would be a world in which Protestantism and Cotholicism are reconciled before the division becomes too great, resulting in a nominally Catholic religion, but with appropriate reforms to mitigate corruption and Italian centrism. This could result in the reformed Christianity, as a common factor in all western nations, being more heavily exported throughout the colonial era along with the other western ideals (since westernism is essentially prevalent nowadays).

Why?

And it's not as if it wasn't exported as is - the problem is that exporting it doesn't mean people accept it. Just having even more missionary work doesn't mean anyone listens to the missionaries more than OTL.

This is not EU where missionaries can be sent out until you run out of money or the place converts.

[Avitus]

Actually, the second wave of european colonialism had very little attempts by governments to export Christianity. By that point it had become somewhat detatched from most nations national image, and besides that it wasn't especially profitable to export it. That said, in the colonies that were founded by Catholic motherlands, the church, which has a government of it's own for which conversion to Christianity actally is profitable, was able to gain large amounts of converts. I imagine that with government aid, and with all countries promoting the same faith, that conversion would be more successful.

Better funded, larger, government promoted missions covering a greater area than OTL will likely, though not definitely, increase the number of converts. Plus, as I said, a less secularized west might actually care about spreading the faith beyond their borders.

I'm sure I'm in a small camp here, but I believe that it has to be a bit more than just circumstance that allowed Christianity and Islam to become incredibly successful time and time again regardless of the target of their missions. Something intrinsic in these religions appealed to potential converts, and continued to do so until these two religions dominated the majority of the earth, and to an extent is continuing to do so.

[Elfwine]

Actually, the second wave of european colonialism had very little attempts by governments to export Christianity. By that point it had become somewhat detatched from most nations national image, and besides that it wasn't especially profitable to export it. That said, in the colonies that were founded by Catholic motherlands, the church, which has a government of it's own for which conversion to Christianity actally is profitable, was able to gain large amounts of converts. I imagine that with government aid, and with all countries promoting the same faith, that conversion would be more successful.

Governments, no. But that doesn't mean it wasn't part of what went out.

And why would it be more successful? Conversion isn't a matter of the enthusiasm of the converter, it's a matter of the enthusiasm of the convertED.


Better funded, larger, government promoted missions covering a greater area than OTL will likely, though not definitely, increase the number of converts. Plus, as I said, a less secularized west might actually care about spreading the faith beyond their borders.

I'm sure I'm in a small camp here, but I believe that it has to be a bit more than just circumstance that allowed Christianity and Islam to become incredibly successful time and time again regardless of the target of their missions. Something intrinsic in these religions appealed to potential converts, and continued to do so until these two religions dominated the majority of the earth, and to an extent is continuing to do so.

The West wasn't secularized in the 19th century. Not in the sense of removing religious influence.

And I don't know why they were incredibly successful, what I do know is that no amount of enthusiasm for sending missionaries to India or China (for instance) is going to produce better results unless the targets WANT to convert.

[Avitus]

Simply put, we have a difference of opinions. I DO believe that more enthusiastic converters are more likely to inspire conversion. Also, Japan apparently wanted to convert before the persecutions, and China may well have done the same if they hadn't nipped the early missionairies in the bud.

To the best of my knowledge the British did not sponsor any serious missionairy work in the east, considering that the Anglican Communion today contains fewer people than the UK alone. I would also call the Spanish the most enhusiastic nation when it comes to converting their colonies, and south America, Central America, and the Phillipines are all heavily Catholic (80% and up) nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, only the French colonies in the second wave of colonization had significant converts, not because France was particularly Zealous, but because they endorsed Catholicism, which set up many successful independant missions because of the Church itself.

This makes me curious, has anyone noticed how poorly Protestantism performed when converting colonies compared to Catholicism? It seems that the only colonies that wound up majority Protestant are the ones that contained a white majority (America, South Africa, Australia, Ect.) and thus needed no mission work. Any speculation as to what caused this dispairity?

[MAlexMatt]

It is at least partially because many protestant denominations, at least the ones that were contained in countries that had colonies, were national churches, membership of which carried with them a civic and ethnic identity that couldn't really spread like that of the universal church.

Non-nationalist forms of Lutheranism, Quakerism, various forms of Charismatic Christianity, and other denominations that escaped the political and ethnic baggage of things like the Church of England were and are popular in the post-colonial world. Nambia, for instance, is majority Lutheran down to this day.

Heck, even Anglicanism has a bit of spread as the Episcopal Church.

It also has something to do with the difference in mission that differently denominated powers went into the colonizing period with. Catholic powers such as France and, to a somewhat more limited extent, Spain were interested in converted the locals and making them good Frenchmen/Spaniards (even if this wasn't the way it always worked in practice). Protestant powers usually went in with more limited, focused motives of imperial power and economic gain.

[Elessar267]

This makes me curious, has anyone noticed how poorly Protestantism performed when converting colonies compared to Catholicism? It seems that the only colonies that wound up majority Protestant are the ones that contained a white majority (America, South Africa, Australia, Ect.) and thus needed no mission work. Any speculation as to what caused this dispairity?

I've noticed it myself. While I haven't done a lot of research on this subject in particular, my guess is because the Catholic Church is, on the whole, far better organized: it already has an effective structure which can simply be expanded into new areas - with missionaries being sent in first in an organized fashion to critical spots, particularly local holy places (which the Church have always been adept at co-opting), and then, once a sizable population has been converted, the establishment of a clear ecclesiastical authority is easy, as, until the locals have become fully part of the Church, the parish structure can bring in foreign priests with relative ease, one with a clear, consistent income stream and so on.

Protestants, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, mostly work alone, and their missionary organizations are generally more independent-minded, with missionaries going to particular places as they desire or are led, or whatever, and, even if they do get enough converts to establish a local congregation, there is little direction or leadership apart from what can be derived locally. While that may establish a few small, strong congregations in certain areas, it won't produce the sort of mass results that Catholicism .

At least, this is the conclusion I've come to, not having looked at the question in significant depth.

[WhatIsAUserName]

To the best of my knowledge the British did not sponsor any serious missionairy work in the east, considering that the Anglican Communion today contains fewer people than the UK alone. I would also call the Spanish the most enhusiastic nation when it comes to converting their colonies, and south America, Central America, and the Phillipines are all heavily Catholic (80% and up) nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, only the French colonies in the second wave of colonization had significant converts, not because France was particularly Zealous, but because they endorsed Catholicism, which set up many successful independant missions because of the Church itself.

This makes me curious, has anyone noticed how poorly Protestantism performed when converting colonies compared to Catholicism? It seems that the only colonies that wound up majority Protestant are the ones that contained a white majority (America, South Africa, Australia, Ect.) and thus needed no mission work. Any speculation as to what caused this dispairity?

I agree mostly with what has been said, but nobody has talked enough about time and place and countries of origin. For example, the Italians had a very short period, less than 100 years, and Roman Catholicism never made any deep inroads in Somalia or Libya, because Islam was established there already. As for the French, only a few former French colonies are majority Catholic, and often barely so (between 50.1 and 51% in Gabon and Republic of Congo, and these were the only two I found, period). For example, neither Cote d'Ivoire nor Vietnam are majority Catholic. So it seems that Italy and France are not particularly adept at creating majority-Catholic countries.

It seems to me that the success of Catholicism is due less to the advantages of the faith, and more to do with the Spanish and Portuguese having long-established colonial rule over places like Mexico and Brazil, almost 300 years or more. Even then, it's not a slam dunk: neither Mozambique nor Macau are majority Catholic, to use Portugal as an example. On the other hand, looking at the Spanish colonial empire, it seems every country that was a Spanish colony is majority-Catholic. Perhaps an honorable mention goes to Belgium, which is 3 for 3 in converting colonies, since the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi are all majority Catholic.

As for the Protestant powers, it seems that they went to places where there was already strong established religions in place. E.g., Hinduism in India or Islam in Egypt for the British, and Islam in Indonesia for the Dutch. Other colonizers, like the Danes or Swedes, are too small to really matter. However, the British weren't complete failures in this regards: there's majority-Protestant South Africa, Namibia, and Papua New Guinea if you want to look at non-white countries. I have a suspicion that if you reverse the situation, like if the UK colonized Mexico, Spain colonized India and France colonized Indonesia, there would instead by a Protestant Mexico, but Hindu India, and Muslim Indonesia would remain similar to real-life.

So, overall, while I think aspects of Catholicism and Protestantism affected their success, ultimately I feel that if you factor in time and native population, Catholicism is not that much more effective.

[Falecius]

I agree mostly with what has been said, but nobody has talked enough about time and place and countries of origin. For example, the Italians had a very short period, less than 100 years, and Roman Catholicism never made any deep inroads in Somalia or Libya, because Islam was established there already. As for the French, only a few former French colonies are majority Catholic, and often barely so (between 50.1 and 51% in Gabon and Republic of Congo, and these were the only two I found, period). For example, neither Cote d'Ivoire nor Vietnam are majority Catholic. So it seems that Italy and France are not particularly adept at creating majority-Catholic countries.

It seems to me that the success of Catholicism is due less to the advantages of the faith, and more to do with the Spanish and Portuguese having long-established colonial rule over places like Mexico and Brazil, almost 300 years or more. Even then, it's not a slam dunk: neither Mozambique nor Macau are majority Catholic, to use Portugal as an example. On the other hand, looking at the Spanish colonial empire, it seems every country that was a Spanish colony is majority-Catholic. Perhaps an honorable mention goes to Belgium, which is 3 for 3 in converting colonies, since the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi are all majority Catholic.

As for the Protestant powers, it seems that they went to places where there was already strong established religions in place. E.g., Hinduism in India or Islam in Egypt for the British, and Islam in Indonesia for the Dutch. Other colonizers, like the Danes or Swedes, are too small to really matter. However, the British weren't complete failures in this regards: there's majority-Protestant South Africa, Namibia, and Papua New Guinea if you want to look at non-white countries. I have a suspicion that if you reverse the situation, like if the UK colonized Mexico, Spain colonized India and France colonized Indonesia, there would instead by a Protestant Mexico, but Hindu India, and Muslim Indonesia would remain similar to real-life.

So, overall, while I think aspects of Catholicism and Protestantism affected their success, ultimately I feel that if you factor in time and native population, Catholicism is not that much more effective.

It should be noted that neither Italy or France where particularly friendly towards the Catholic Church in the timeframe when they colonized Africa.
Heck, Catholics were forbidden to partake in Italian politics under threat of excommunication!
France was a secular republic too. Her government mostly did not care much about Catholic missions and I guess it could find them a nuisance at times. However, France did manage to create a lot of sizeable Catholic minorities.
Italy really never bothered to even try, but the little attempt that was done, led nowhere anyway.

[Elfwine]

Simply put, we have a difference of opinions. I DO believe that more enthusiastic converters are more likely to inspire conversion. Also, Japan apparently wanted to convert before the persecutions, and China may well have done the same if they hadn't nipped the early missionairies in the bud.

Why? Because speaking as an agnostic, pestering me more is not going to make me more inclined to convert. Now, if these enthusiastic converters are in a position to convert by force, that's one thing - but that's a different kind of situation from just increasing the number of missionaries.

As for China and Japan:
In other words, if it wasn't for the reasons they didn't convert, they might have converted. :rolleyes:

[Riain]

I`m wondering when Christendom peaked? I have a vague idea that before the spread of Islam it was most of Europe, north Africa and the Mid East to about the Persian border with significant minorities in Perisa and communities in India. This leaves out the vast majority of Asia and at the time the Americas.

[Iori]

I`m wondering when Christendom peaked?


As in a percentage of the world population, probably sometime in the first-half of the 20th century.