Source?
The early Church would be gathering in people’s private houses and back rooms with no admission fee and food and drink would be freely sheared in common.
For most popular religions such as the cult of Mars or Jupiter or even Judasim you were required to either give to the temple or provide sacrifices to the temple sacrifices are not cheap.
Goddammit. I’ll elaborate when I wake up, but:
-
Roman religion did not have a clear or consistent view of the afterlife, much less a specific heaven. Everything from reincarnation, to lingering as a spirit, to oneness with divinity, to one common afterlife, to multiple places of the afterlife (Elysium/Asphodel Fields/Taratarus) was floated, and none of the views predominated, much less agreement on HOW one was sorted.
-
Sacrifices were very often done on behalf of the community, not as an individual matter, unlike “accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and savior”. Religion was a public affair, not a private and spiritual one, some eclectic cults and philosophies aside.
-
Both individual and communal sacrifices were done to gain the favor of the gods for undertakings in the world of the living, not to curry favor for the afterlife
-
Mars and Jupiter were part of the Roman pantheon, and insofar as there were cults to them, they would not and should not be regarded as separate religions or sects
-
Christianity, and yes, this includes early Christianity, was very big on individuals giving up their worldly possessions to the Christian community.
-
Sacrifices and feasts were provided by most pagan religions to their communities. Christianity is not special in that regard.
You two seem to be talking past each other. They’re merely saying history is complicated, and it is. There were far more peaceful Christian sects back in the day for the simple fact that there were A LOT more sects. Including ones that thought God was the bad diety.
They are correct in that many sects did not preach outreach and indoctrination, and you are correct in that most modern Christian sects are the dumbasses who did a lot of culling in addition to their “outreach”.
You two seem to be talking past each other. They’re merely saying history is complicated, and it is.
My main objection - and, in fact, in the original comment, my ONLY objection - was to their characterization of Roman religion.
There were far more peaceful Christian sects back in the day for the simple fact that there were A LOT more sects.
I’m not discussing ‘peaceful’. That was never on the board. I’ve not stated any position on whether Christianity, in part or whole, is peaceful. Evangelism means ‘actively seeking converts’.
Including ones that thought God was the bad diety.
-
There’s debate as to whether gnostics should be considered, in historical context, Christians.
-
Gnostics have not had a significant influence on the history of Christianity.
-
Gnostics still very much believed in proselytization.
They are correct in that many sects did not preach outreach and indoctrination,
Which ones? The Orthodox Churches, despite the other commenters claims, are far from opposed to outreach and indoctrination. The Coptic Church is only hesitant about outreach because of religious oppression in Egypt, not because of a theological difference.