alright so it would seem every christian sect markets some form

up

for fucks sake can i get a reply

>>1592581
no

>>1592998
pretty please

>>1592353
>weighing your sins against a feather when you die
is not true to most sects.

The various theolgoical bases and interpretations vary heavily from sect to sect, though most of the "middle" sects largely agree on pretty much everything nowadays, and just emphasize different parts of the message.

Jehovah witnesses, for example, believe in literal resurrection at the end of days. until then, you're just . . . dead. which, by many readings of the bilbe, is technically correct. on the flip-side, they believe that medicine is bad, no blood transfusions, no organ donations, no inebriates, so basically Mormons without the magical ultra-sailor Jews and native Americans. most of the above has no new covenant basis.

roughly parallel to them you have some of the stricter Calvinist - based -sects, who don't believe in free will, and some strange historical stuff I don;t want to get into here cause I'm not very well versed with them.

at the opposite end of the spectrum is non-dom, which is basically like "believe whatever but keep the Jesus"

the birth of the modern non-dom and evangelicals can be largely attributed to the Mennonites, followed by the Pentecostals, who contributed the concepts of anabaptism (being able to be baptized as an adult, little more complicated than that but eh. ) and Revivalism, respectively. The two are not necessarily contemporaries in the strictest meaning, however.

outside of the mainstream you have the Arian and Socinian (sp?) sects, which both trace back to the early Holy roman empire, are both considered heretical by the mainstream, and led to the formation of the Unitarian church, which arose in eastern Europe, the UK and the US in the 16th century.

I realize I did a terrible job of giving a full overview here, but it's a start. go do some research.

>>1593320
no