and at the root of this is the 'beautiful and glorious story' of Abraham
the father of all three Great Western Religions.
A person that would put a blade to his own child's throat and slaughter him.
He was not a great man. He was either delusional, or a complete moral failure. (most likely fictional)
A book I'd suggest from here is Robert Wright's "The Evolution of God." I find myself unable to call it a "great book," primarily because it's written for mass audiences, and, as such, I think is a bit short on the kind of erudite detail and nuance that I like when reading about history. Nonetheless, what it does excel at is underlining how very different the Abrahamic faiths are, not only when comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to each other, but also outlining how different each religion has become over time. Where the book fails, in my view, is that it stops at early Christianity in discussing Judeo-Christianity and the early founding of Islam, ignoring the substantive changes in theology over the past two millennia just from a cultural perspective.
But I digress. My point, basically, is that Abraham is not a substantive aspect of the Christian faith, particularly since Abraham himself was a product of the Jewish preoccupation with "ethnic purity" related to the "Chosen People." The New Testament not only turns "Abraham's descendants" into a figurative, rather than genetic notion, but also makes it clear that merely being "a descendant of Abraham" doesn't guarantee salvation. Thus, "Abraham" was effectively made irrelevant from the start.
Building further on that--and taking from a page of Mortimer Adler, as before--is the idea of what constitutes the essence of faith. I'd say that, in the face of modern religion, very little of "Biblical myth" really matters all that much in modern Christianity, whether one believes it to be "mythic" or true. Medieval Christianity was really a continuation of Greco-Roman philosophy and traditions, with the old Semitic origins of Christianity--by way of Judaism--long passing into history. This legacy continues, more or less but not unchanged, in Roman Catholicism. Modern Protestant Christianity, up until recent decades, was the continuing legacy of Northern European (e.g., "Germanic") customs and the dominant philosophy of the late medieval/early modern era. This has quite largely eroded since the second half of the 20th century onward, I'd say due to the substantial cultural changes of the largely Protestant nations of the world. Leading into the present, some have said that "Christianity" of the United States is primarily about materialism (i.e., the "prosperity gospel"), reflecting a shift in culture.
As a result, I do think Christianity is presently at a crossroads. Either it is wholly irrelevant, in light of change, or--more likely in my view--it is more of a time of reflection to analyze what Christianity is or should be today. My main concern is that religion itself has become such a politicized and ideologically polarizing subject that it will instead devolve into an extremist theology largely devoid of logic and instead full of superstition and a desire to "return" to erroneous romanticist notions of what "early Christianity" was (itself based on a historicist fallacy that the "earliest" notions must, by default, be "purer" in contrast to modern theology).
If one is to accept or reject Christianity, ideally, I believe it should be for good reason one way or another. I think that the mythos of Abraham and similar preoccupations (such as Noah's Ark) are so completely and long inconsequential to modern Christianity that it is no longer "good reason."