Whenever something is cultivated by a huge institution like Rome, it’s hard to resist (whether persecution was as significant or not).

But really, remember screenwriter William Goldman’s saying, “No one knows anything,” to account for the lack of knowledge about why some films are hits and others are not. You can probably apply the same idea to religions and cults: some succeed and continually adapt to speak to the culture, while others lose momentum and fail. We don't always know why but seem to enjoy retro fitting explanations.

Would you also say there are positive aspects introduced by Christianity that greatly appealed to people? Some of the messages in the Gospels, for instance, might have resonated widely. A religion that venerates the powerless and the poor might also account for some of its traction.

One also needs to remember that a religion becoming global and powerful is not that unusual, take Islam (which is roughly 6 centuries younger) which is not far behind in terms of popularity. Islam is faster growing too. This may be a function of birth rate.

Julian the Apostate credited Christians with their care of the poor, and thought it part of their appeal. During his brief time as Emperor he thought of trying to organize similar relief on behalf of pagan divinities.

Indeed, Gore Vidal wrote a cute book on Julian.

A favorite of mine.

Seems about right - that charity is the main, and perhaps the only, significant contribution of Christianity to Ethics. The other stuff is derivative.

But is charity enough to explain its success? I doubt that.

Hmmmn, any redemptive features after that list of bad things...?

Does that call for a justification to match a condemnation? There is an abundance of that sort of thing about. We are not in a great place to set up scales of that sort.

I figure the idea of a personal conscience is worthy, however much or little it came about because of the history of Christianity.

a personal conscience — Paine

A Daimonion?

I think that expresses an aspect of it.

But perceiving what comes from actions is another thing. Conflicts of motivation.

I've thought about this very topic quite often—and for prolonged periods—across the past decade. So much so I feel I can be non-biased, despite being a theist, almost to the point of being uniquely terse—nearly eviscerating—in my critique and criticisms, despite one typically expecting the opposite.

To even begin to understand the true meta-reality and dynamic we must first go back to time immemorial. Before the first line of written or recorded history. Perhaps even before the first cave painting. We must go back to a time when the first men realized he was a man, a unique being set apart from his surroundings, who realized not only what pain was, but what death was. Non-existence. To see a fellow member of his commune, who he would laugh and smile at, who would bring him joy, who he would remember from day to day, perhaps even dreaming of. Bear in mind, no proper or structured, established language is required to achieve any of this. And one day, that man he endeared, his friend, was dead before him. He did not move. He could not speak. He was simply, inanimate. And during this first "acknowledgement of death", is what ironically gave man his first life. His first glimpse into his own mortality. That one day, or perhaps if not careful (before we accepted the truth that yes all of us will one day perish), we could die too. It was this revelation that spurred man onto an endless quest for immortality. This spawned all forms of medicine, healing, therapy, and other cruxes of self-care that came after.

It was then we had an enemy. It's name was Death. It came in many forms, and could strike at any hour. Perhaps a wild animal. Perhaps an outsider criminal to pillage and plunder so as to avoid his own Death. No matter what, this was when it occurred. This is the backstory.

Some time later, men realized, he could not physically defeat Death. Every thing you create, every life, a child, every person you know and rely on, a father, uncle, or brother, will one day be devoured by this still-unknown monster we call "Death." It made life not worth living. Why struggle when there's no true reason? And from this question, came (what atheists consider False Motivation, and what theists consider) Truth.

Suddenly the idea of a soul. An afterlife. An eternity that is not bound by the primal savageries and unpredictabilities of this world became more important than life itself. For how could it not? True or not, it gave what no man ever could. Eternal life. This my friends, is the story of all modern religion.

Seems about right - that charity is the main, and perhaps the only, significant contribution of Christianity to Ethics. The other stuff is derivative. — Banno

Meh, this seems sort of non-genuine. Charity existed before Christianity, obviously. Not like the first person to ever give someone something outside of trade or favor first occurred after 33 A.D.

It's about restraint, humility, submission to a larger plan no man can ever understand, and therefore can never take away. Not really. To not be afraid of those who can and will take your life, but to be strong in the face of these adversaries knowing you have something no man can ever take, a soul created by God. You become untouchable. Outside of the damage of any word or swing of a blade. Sure, your flesh can die. All flesh will die one day. But after all flesh and even this world dies, there will remain God, and if you choose to embrace this, you yourself.

Obviously you can just point to "oh no the idea of an afterlife and living after death is as old as society itself", sure. But none seemed to have succeeded in proliferating such on such a wide, global scale. Surely you cannot deny that.

Not enough, no. I think there's no getting around the fact that Christianty benefited primarily from its acquisition of imperial authority, which ignored the destruction of the pagan past and then actively participated in it. Justinian closed the last of the philosophical schools of Athens, and after that there wasn't much left.

Charity existed before Christianity, obviously. — Outlander

Of course. I was being charitable...

Check out any list of pagan virtues and you will not find charity.

I can't think of anything signifcantly redemptive that wasn't borrowed from pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato, the neo-platonists, the Stoics and Aristotle.

Mine is Marcus Tullius Cicero, of course. Ciceronianus sum, non Christianus

Of course. But beneficentia is not quite the same as the Christian virtue, perhaps. "Caritas"remained rooted in reciprocity, desert, and social order.

And so another question here might be the extent to which charity is a virtue...

I take your point about originality. I am not an apologist, in the many ways that may be understood.

Kierkegaard makes an interesting attempt at looking at innocence from a personal point of view. It is an instance where the report may be wrong. Explanation needs to be tested against experience.

The story resonates, especially at Christmas. God so loved the world.....

Claude Levi-Strauss claimed that myth is about overcoming contradictions and opposites. In Christianity, death = birth. The meek shall inherit the earth. These stories resonate with people. Here's GK Chesterton's take, appropriate for the season:

There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honor and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

A Child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam,
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost - how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

Hmmmn, any redemptive features after that list of bad things...? — Paine

This is improperly framing the argument, perhaps even misunderstanding the larger picture. Humanity is what does bad things when unrefined, untaught, and unyielded. To not mince words, all Christianity did is to try and make a terrible thing less terrible. And it did. Until it didn't. And even before then, even the most advanced garbage cans will still let out a stench every now and then. Sorry to be so blunt. That's what you're referring to. Human nature. Not the attempt to control refine it that was Christian ideology. It was a noble attempt. And brought about everything you see and use today. It brought peace, if not fleeting and perhaps ironic, so that men could study in peace, so that men could control their petty, base, primal emotions so as not to respond with anger and non-restraint. Before Christianity, this was considered weakness. After, it was considered strength. The definition of a strong man with refined intellect and purpose. A being above a mere animal that was the current zeitgeist before. So, in fact, a resounding success by all intent and use of the word. So have a little respect, if not at least a little sense.

It was people ignoring the tenants of Christianity, "love thy neighbor". In short, as simple as it was. Much more simplified than Judaism. It was still too difficult for humanity. Which as pathetic as that may be, only points to a resignatory truth. Mankind is not good. It never was. And never will be. But it can be controlled. And so long as it is controlled, it can be permitted to exist (not be destroyed by higher beings, which you may or may not discover exist at some point, for it matters not). There is no other way around it.

To put it simply, when everything works right from a new system, it becomes a norm after a time. It's no longer appreciated. It no longer "does anything" but provide what we've so foolishly come to expect. See the hedonic treadmill. Low level people who never grew up. When your roof no longer leaks, now you'll focus on that horrible draft from the non-repaired window that keeps you up at night. When that's fixed, now you'll focus on that insufferable uneven table leg that makes every meal into a scene of impending doom.

This is obviously a large topic, but as a non-Christian I admire how the gospels teach correct socialization. I still remember teachings like "all who humble themselves will be exalted and all who exalt themselves will be humbled." I also love the advice Jesus tells his disciples when they go out into the world: "be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents." They are simple but fruitful lessons to apply and pass on.

And of course they attached the entire Jewish bible to their canon.... with a few more books included until Luther took them out. Jesus as a character is fascinating and employs aspects of both Greco-Roman literature and Jewish lit.

This question comes to my mind during the Christmas season. I'm inclined to attribute it several factors, which I'll summarize.

First, its thorough assimilation of pagan religious beliefs, especially those of the various pagan mystery cults involving rebirth, salvation and life after death (it also assimilated a great deal of pagan philosophy as well, but though this was useful in providing, awkwardly I think, intellectual support for Christianity I doubt it contributed much to its spread). Christmas itself is evidence of this assimilation, as its celebration consists in great part of the customs of the Roman Saturnalia and the northern European Yule. The date chosen for the celebration of Jesus' birth, of course, is the traditional date of the birth of Sol Invictus and other gods associated with the Winter Solstice

Second, its ruthless and relentless suppression of all other religious beliefs after Christians acquired control of the Roman imperial government, including suppression of Christian variants deemed heretical once orthodoxy was established (I mean those popular before the Reformation). In short, it profited from its intolerance.

Third, zealous commitment to its spread among non-Christians (the missionary impulse), sometimes by force of arms.

Fourth, the appeal of a religion which promised forgiveness of sins, thus providing hope that salvation was possible regardless of wrongs committed during life.

Which tells us something about successful institutional religion and ourselves, I think; none of it inspiring or attractive. — Ciceronianus

I think this might be a cynical point-of-view, as far as the early spread of Christianity is concerned. I think the gospel of Jesus was embraced because it was the first egalitarian philosophy to reach the ears of the oppressed. Jesus was the first egalitarian, elevating the poor to an equal status with the upper levels. The promises were great, as can be seen by the 5th century poem, St. Patrick's Breastplate:

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with His baptism,
Through the strength of His crucifixion with His burial,
Through the strength of His resurrection with His ascension,
Through the strength of His descent for the judgment of doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of cherubim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In the hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In the prayers of patriarchs,
In the predictions of prophets,
In the preaching of apostles,
In the faith of confessors,
In the innocence of holy virgins,
In the deeds of righteous men.
I arise today, through
The strength of heaven,
The light of the sun,
The radiance of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The speed of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of the sea,
The stability of the earth,
The firmness of rock.
I arise today, through
God's strength to pilot me,
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptation of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
afar and near.
I summon today
All these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel and merciless power
that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom,
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul;
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me an abundance of reward.
Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the Threeness,
Through confession of the Oneness
of the Creator of creation.

I do not have your confidence regarding historical necessity.

For that reason, I don't want to suggest I am arguing against your thesis.