Another way is to look at history, what happened, and at least postulate as best possible why it happened. Then evaluate the role of Christianity in those events.
The singlemost valuable difference between humans and other creatures on Earth is the ability to pass information from generation to generation. Of course all mammals stay with their parents for a term of training of one sort or another and transfer valuable lessons. It is no surprise that mammals have larger brains as compared to the size of their bodies than other animals do. But humans through writing can pass even more information. Humans have a far greater capacity for traditions and accumulated knowledge because they can write things down.
The evidence seems clear though that such writing began less than approximately 4,000 years ago and developed slowly. It seems then that there was a time with very little human tradition to it, comparatively speaking at least.
Although many people have opposed certain traditions, on the whole they follow and benefit from most of them however unconsciously. It is difficult really to understand a world with no traditions at all.
Try to imagine such a world anyway. Having learned the relative costs and benefits of various activities, having discovered a set of "rights" and "wrongs" so to speak, how could these pass the generations? There was no appeal to ethos.
Things could be written, but there wasn't much reason to follow them. The first collections were neccessarily somewhat "random" or "superstitious" because there were no other criteria to follow.
In time though larger and larger databases developed. At some point it became practical to argue that certain activities were better than others because years of trials showed it so.
Appreciation of the lessons was not evenly distributed. For a long time after trial and error had taught lessons, priests continued to rely on "superstition" for transmission to the wide world and future generations.
Even the casual student of history should recognize approximately when some of these changes occurred. The world of the Old Testament of the Bible was a very "superstitious" one, more for their neighbors perhaps than for the Jews. In order to survive and compete in such a world it was probably necessary to justify, or at least seem to justify, things because of the good magic that might follow or the bad magic that might otherwise follow. There are of course already in the Old Testament examples of "trickery" being practiced or recognized. The crossing of the Jordan is one.
Necessary as such practices perhaps were, in time they became a burden. After good traditions were established it seemed better to transmit them on their own merits. The dilemma was that the "good" people had a reputation, whether justifiable or not, for following a "magic," and magic had lost much of its power.
Intentionally or not, Jesus solved this dilemma by seeming to make the disobedience or disregard of rules a province of the superstitious. The word "seeming" is important here because so many religious denominations, official and otherwise, differ on many of these points. Some of the most intensely heated arguments in history were whether Jesus or his father is the actual "God." The "mystery" of the trinity has served as a somewhat workable compromise since Niceae. It seems unnecessary to cite the passages used so often in those controversies. The beginner should perhaps consider Matthew chapter 5 verse 18 and chapter 9 verse 24.
Many people who "believe" in Jesus will not however immediately explain things in this way. The investigator will in fact have difficulty determining what many believe and why. In deference to those Christians it is not so much the intention here to direct anyone to any conclusions, as to assemble the relevant data.
It would be remiss not to list some of the more common alternate interpretations of the meaning and purpose of Jesus.
Type "B," for lack of any other label, is that civilization came to abhor killing and was so revolted that anyone should be killed in the name of the law that it was decided it would be better if there were no laws at all. It has been explained how city life with its different dynamic was prone to such beliefs. Type B is often criticized as being "emotional" over "logical" since it has no provision for punishing or deterring murderers. Adherents to Type B are won by the pathos appeal.
Type "C," again for lack of any other label, is that commandments against killing were a burden on the defenseless folks in the world. It has been explained how the people of the countryside were comparatively defenseless and prone to such beliefs.
Type "D" is the least "religious" of them all. It is widespread today and likely comparatively rare in the ancient world. Its adherents use the military to promote a sort of licentious anarchy because they disagree with traditional knowledge. It will be widespread when people fail to transmit traditions properly, when for example few know what the meaning and purpose of marriage is. The misconduct at Abu Graib was a glaring example. Type D have recently developed quite a knack for deceiving Type C into supporting them.
Type "E" is the result of a conscious attempt at "rationalizing" other types that promote lawlessness. Its adherents believe that by appearing to promote wrong behavior, wrongdoers will be much easier to catch. I probably know more of these people than you, but it is not because I am one of them. I suppose it has certain merits, but the hazards seem to outweigh. The only ones being caught are often the adherents themselves, and they can actually cause more wrongdoing by promotion than they catch. At least that is one way to look at early support for the latest war in Iraq.
In the article on Cultural Inversion it was shown that Democrats have weak or no support of religious traditions and at the same time oppose, or claim to oppose, war. Unless close attention is paid to details confusion with Type B "Christians" might result. Please note these important differences. Type B pretended to have no important traditions in order to fool excessively violent Romans. Culturally inverted democrats pretend to oppose war, out of "habit" or an outdated assumption that they oppose war, but really have no traditons, nor oppose war.
Please also note these important differences in the world, in science. Rome had no Darwin, no "animalcules," and no cultural inversion. Even in Rome, new to civilization as it was, the cities were still the centers of traditions and culture. Their own armies had to follow rules in order to enter the cities.
Culturally inverted Democrats cannot legitimately claim that they are "pretending" to have no traditional beliefs for any good reason because their opponents actually have those traditions already, much stronger. Their Republican opponents appear to have one item wrong, excessive support of violence, but that isn't really what bothers culturally inverted Democrats, who should now be seeking to put an end to violence by acknowledging traditional religious values.
Although it would seem to require quite much magic for life to assemble itself without some intelligent designer, it is ironically, a fear of magic, or a fear of dependence on magic, that prevents many people acknowledging the truth of intelligent design. The attitude that magic should be avoided is so entrenched so deeply in the minds of so many people that they cannot ackowledge anything beyond human understanding and powers at all. That attitude misses the point. The point is not that there is nothing "magical" or beyond human understanding, the point is that some things are indeed beyond human understanding. It isn't about what God can't do, it's about what people can't do.
Their fear is that by admitting there are things beyond human knowledge and power, the ability to coerce other people into lawful behavior will be lost. That comes from a misunderstanding of law. The purpose of the law is not to coerce people into any behavior, but to minimize their coercion of others. The Ten Commandments are a formula for the minimization of coercion. By acknowledging that there are no people who can do magic, it derails attempts at coercion and resets the default minimum established by the Ten Commandments.
For an important discussion on "easy" versus "difficult" spiritualism see Spiritualism Today.