Rather than looking at Christianity (or any other philosophical or religious doctrine) as a whole, I think it's easier - and ultimately more sensible - to analyze specific claims individually.

And probably the most important question to ask about any claim is this: Is it supported by democratically observable evidence? Or does it rely on a prophet, or other authority as a gatekeeper against questioning?

Claims that are supported by publicly observable and testable evidence are safe and good, because they invite collaboration and community building. Whereas claims that discourage or prohibit public observation and questioning are dangerous and bad, because they breed tribalism, fear, and hatred.

Christianity has many claims that rely on a prophet, and that specifically discourage public questioning. And this, to me, is by far the biggest problem with Christianity or any other belief system whose claims largely prohibit democratic observation and consensus.