I think you can say when christianity started to rise it didn't improve life much at all, but to say it brought bloodshed? The Romans, Huns, Mongols, Persians etc, didn't need religion to be incredibly violent. Seems to me that the bible is a mixed bag of all the good and bad man has in his mind. Maybe at a time when there were very few books available this bible gave rational people in the general population a chance to ponder the state of man and society. Christianity is a pacifist doomsday cult full of inconsistencies and few solutions to social problems, and it was supposed to be the state religion. Perhaps this helped lead to independent thought and divergence of opinion in the west along with the concept of the equality of all humans.

"...supposed to be the state religion..." ? I don't believe it was, you know:

" Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; Render unto God that which is God's ".

A clear division of church and state I'd say.

But one has to remember that 'The Troubles', though aligned on sectarian axes, are essentially economic at root.

Christians probably ought to be pacifists, but they are as good at making war as any other group. I would not say they represent a doomsday cult by definition; however, I would say anyone who believes in "God's inviolate will", is at least a passive danger to civilization. Even if it is true we are on the path to extinction, "so what?" "God's in control." If that is anywhere in one's mentality, even the possibility that we may be endangering the future of the species, is not going to be taken seriously.

Not in any way, ex. This passage from Mark's Gospel, 12:17, is Jesus' reply to an ad hoc committee of powerful men who wanted, on the one hand, to advance their religion's independence from the State, and on the other to consolidate the State's authority over the religious organisations of their time. These men were Pharisees and Herodians, normally bitter enemies, but who came together to try to defeat Jesus' mission to free God's people from the religiosity of the Jews and the tyranny of Pagan rulers. Unashamedly disingenuous and hypocritical they put a trick question to Jesus: Should they pay their tribute to God and withhold it from the State, or the other way around? They expected Jesus' reply to be controversial enough to discredit him in the eyes of the people or of the Roman authorities and so drive a wedge between Church and State. But Jesus told them that they must do both. Whatever you owe to the world you must pay it. Whatever you owe to God must be rendered to God.

I think we ponder on the differences between religions too much and not enough on the similarities.

What will an either answer YES/NO to your question change about Christianity itself in general? Christianity gets countlessly labeled during its existance but all it does de facto it leads to a confusion in debates on the topic rather than serves any sensible purpose. Even if it is pacifist doomsday cult it is still harmless inevitable end expecting 'society' which can be simply called Christianity I think.