agree with many things you say, and highlighted some, but they are incomplete in too many ways. American Christianity deserves much skepticism, I know. But so do most other groups and groupings of people. Instead of constantly playing the "Blame Game," maybe "Mirror Mirror on the Wall" would have more positive and long-lasting results.
(By the by, Christian Nationalism is not Christianity in any possible construct. It is neo-Nazism, plain and simple.)
Now, you do have some bit of a grasp of the history of the Christian church denominations, but take a strategy of beating down the wrong path. It's not unlike setting up a straw man or barking up the wrong tree. Not that you are lying or anything of the sort. However, that sly old fox you are chasing is not a singular varmint and has fled the tree and is hiding somewhere else. The hounds are making a lot of noise, but have lost the trail.
I have recently realized when I write using universal quantifying words it results in absolute statements which block any exceptions. "They are linguistic generalizations that restrict or omit possibilities to see, hear, and feel a different experience," restricting open discussion. - *https://www.danandcarol.com/e-zine-archives/never-ever-syndrome
Also, in my opinion, you are using misconceptions of Biblical texts instead of correct usage, building your arguments on weak foundations, which result in misleading, if not false, conclusions.
For example, if I say "All white people are spoiled, mean, stupid, and phonies," I have disallowed any different conclusion, and I am pretty sure there might be exceptions. Likewise, saying "all evangelicals," in order to prove a point is oversimplified, becoming nonsensical and erroneous.
Immediately, when someone makes any absolute claims, I want to know where the writer has been resourcing the applicable statistical data. There are times when it is reasonable to narrow the focus, but using absolutes is more of a scattergun approach with few pellets hitting the bullseye!
Am I right or wrong in my opinion?
Still and all, I have read many articles with very shaky arguments and proofs about the unreliability of the Bible. Here's one of my favorite claims: "The earliest manuscripts of the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written around 60 years after the birth of Jesus - too far after the fact to be reliable." Conveniently omitted is the fact that Jesus didn't start His ministry until He was around 30 years old. Doesn't that give the Apostles plenty of time to write their recollections of Jesus' life and teachings?
Admittedly, Luke's Gospel was a later researched historical account, rather than an eyewitness one. Yet as an educated doctor, I am pretty sure he knew how to do diagnostic research.
The others wrote just as the Apostle John explains in his letter to Believers, in 1 John 1:1-4, that Jesus is a real person "...which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands...which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands...We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us." - NIV excerpts.
Anyways, you can do with this what you choose.
My wife and I chose to accept God, Jesus, and the Bible into our lives some 40 to 50 years ago, and the Gospel continues to work in real time and in our real living and as a continuing phenomenon of benefits.
What basket, I wonder, would you put us in?
