"Religions" of the Roman world varied. Most of it was ritual practices. There were periodic occasions when cities honored their guardian deities with sacrifices and ceremonies, to ensure that they stayed happy and kept the city safe.

In the Marquette Lecture volume, I focus on the question in the title. I emphasize the social and political costs of being a Christian in the earliest centuries, and contend that many attempts to answer the question are banal. I don't attempt a full answer myself, but urge that scholars should take the question more seriously.

Justin Martyr says that he was impressed in his study of the Old Testament, at the seriousness and contents of these writings, and became convinced that Jesus fulfilled these texts.

I think that Rodney Stark puts his foot wrong on some things where he simply wasn't sufficiently current on scholarly developments.

I think Rodney Stark makes a substantial contribution to the study of early Christianity in posing the kinds of questions that he pursues (which reflect his social-science background).

Some modern scholars contend that in terms of what "religion" was in that [Roman-era setting], you can't even call Christianity a religion.

Early Christianity, like Roman-era philosophical traditions, laid emphasis on everyday behavior, about how to live your life.