I'm not attacking christianity

People say sometimes "You are attacking Christianity!" Why would they say that? What is this "Christianity" which I'm said to be attacking? According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This is why Gina Cerminara wrote her handbook on religious sanity.** So what exactly is being attacked? That there are 41K+ versions of devolution from an alleged original teaching? Does anyone think that any one of these chosen at random, from some Catholic sect to the Westboro Church is, in fact, the original teaching of Jesus the Christ? Seriously? 

So if someone tells me I'm attacking "Christianity", what I hear is some version of this:

"I have chosen or have been indoctrinated from birth into one of 41,000 versions of someone's teaching we have a few contradictory lines about in a 2000-year-old book. That book also has other parts another 2000 years older yet, which contradicts both itself and the newer part. That whole caboodle wasn't compiled as a piece until some 300 years after the little known, if extant, original dispenser of a tiny fraction of it was gone. So I have, without original records and after 2000 years of alterations and changing interpretations, decided that the story my sect of an overwhelmingly turbulent stream of unverifiable beliefs is, in fact, the one true and only way to an end I postulate based on what these stories passed down and altered for two millennia claim to be "true" in the particular version I claim as mine.

"I do this not having looked into the origins and history of my beliefs, and without examination of the philosophies and mystic traditions my particular extrapolation of beliefs comes from, including, but not limited to, Zoroastrianism, Nondualism, Mithraism, or the Egyptian and Essene Mysteries and the teachings of Indian, Tibetan, and Oriental Masters who may have influenced the person of Jesus, and are traditionally and falsely discounted as relevant material to understanding words, works, and ideas attributed to him."

So for my part, I completely understand what Jiddu Krishnamurti said: "When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind."*

So I am not attacking an unspecifiable brand of christianism, for I cannot call any current thing which calls itself "Christianity." I cannot, because it is all derivative and based on feasibly demonstrable misinterpretations. What I am doing is asking for a conscious re-evaluation of beliefs by anyone who has the moral and emotional courage to do so, and come out the other end retaining their faith if they wish, but doing so on a foundation of self-awareness and history. 

~~~~

*Source: Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, chapter 6

** The book is one used by many denominations in their study of comparative religion, and has many interfaith recommendations. It is called "Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity."