Right, Christians are obviously at least partly responsible for making their religion so annoying, or their behaviour showcases what's wrong with their religion, from this critical standpoint.

But you've cherry-picked the article here. The main arguments aren't personal attacks since they're about basic features of the religion itself, the exchanging of myth for history, and the nonreligious roles of spreading the gospel through the stages of Christian history. What's annoying here are those structural confusions. No one Christian is responsible for those confusions, so the criticism isn't personal. I'm talking about the religion's institutions.

But what are critics supposed to do about these problems with Christianity? If you criticize the religion, can the religion itself talk back? No, so you've got to deal with individual Christians. I don't think my argument is ad hominem, but obviously Christians are closely related to their institutions.

Anyway, your responses have entirely avoided the problems at issue.