Christianity.But in its modern forms Christianity looks pretty bad.

But in its modern forms Christianity looks pretty bad. Still my major complaints are that it is not very convincing. A good deal of the premises seem to be founded on very strained readings of the New Testament. Still for Christian saints of the past I am willing to cut a lot of slack because of the pureness of their intentions.

What I mean is the divinity of Jesus is not supported by the text. Doing miracles has nothing to do with divinity. Answering a question "Are you so and so?" and answering  "I am" also has nothing to do with it. [If someone would ask me, "Are you  Avraham?" I would say "I am".] It is just the common way to answer a question. And if Jesus had meant to use the name of God אהיה (as God said his name is in the burning bush), then he would have had to have said, "I will be."
For the way the English Bible translates it is  a mistake. אהיה אשר אהיה means "I will be that which I will be." Not "I Am."

For a comparison you can look at writings where someone was claiming to be G-d and they make it clear that that is what they mean like in Bhagavad Gita.

Similarly nullification of the mizvot is not supported by the text. [That is nothing that Jesus said would support such a conclusion.]

What Christianity is based on  is mainly Paul's interpretation of Jesus. It is clear that James disagreed with him.

[In other words as far as Christians follow the example of Jesus they do well. But then some people throw in Paul who is the direct opposite of everything that Jesus said. And then they have to change the simple meaning of everything the Jesus said and did to make it correspond to Paul.]

[Wasp’s tend to take their social meme from Luther [even though in theory they come from Calvin]. I am not happy with Luther. The social meme of WASP's does not even come from the NT but rather Luther and Calvin.]