Actually, WL praised Christianity—Catholicism—for precisely the same reason as Nietzsche did:
“Let us not forget in the end what a Church is, and especially in contrast to every ‘State’: a Church is above all an authoritative organisation which secures to the more spiritual men the highest rank, and believes in the power of spirituality so far as to forbid all grosser appliances of authority. Through this alone the Church is under all circumstances a nobler institution than the State.” (Nietzsche, GS 358; cf. BGE 61 and AC 57.)
The only thing Nietzsche had against Churches in this sense—Churches for which religion is a means, not an end (see BGE 62)—is that they needed so-called “noble” or “holy” lies. In Nietzsche’s time, which I think is also ours, such lies are no longer necessary. But philosophy’s ideal State is still the same as it was in Plato’s time: a hierarchy based on spirituality. Such a hierarchy very basically consists of three classes: from low to high, those who are characterised by love of well-being and ease, those who are characterised by love of honour, and those who are characterised by love of wisdom. And you, Fixed Cross, seem to belong among the second of these: after all, when you first became interested in Eastern astrology, you put special emphasis on your belonging to “the most ambitious [eerzuchtig, lit. “honour-addicted”] of all the Dragons”; and as in the meantime, you still haven’t been accorded the honours you so crave, you recently exalted yourself for your great ambition: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=176444. According to your logic, however, such a will to honour implies a lack of honour… Add to this your wishful thinking of yourself as an “arch-father”, a hero of the people, and I’m apt to conclude that you’re a Daedalus:
“Daedalus is the ancient hero fit for the Baconian tasks of invention and engineering for the public good. But Daedalus lacked the public spiritedness essential to Bacon’s undertaking; he was treacherous and lawless, serving only himself in his apparent service of others. How can Bacon dare to entrust the rule of Bensalem to the Daedaluses?
[…] [T]hey can be ‘convicted by their proper vanity’; they can be made to bridle themselves, Bacon hints, if attention is paid to their nature, to what they are rather than what they ought to be. The ancients knew the nature of the Daedaluses: they are, of all men, those most troubled by envy. Their envy is the most bitter and most implacable kind. And their envy never lets them rest. The ancients attempted to reform or repress that ineradicable envy and to make the Daedaluses superfluous. Bacon attempts to use that envy, to direct it by nurturing it in a society that thinks the Daedaluses indispensable.
[…] Bacon brings the envious Daedaluses under Minos by allowing them to be the envy of all. More exactly, he allows the Daedaluses to usurp the powers of Minos and ascend to the positions of rule because he has found a way for their vanity to channel their powers. The vanity of the Daedaluses, the product of their envious natures, requires that they be acknowledged as the singular geniuses they think they are. Uneasy in their self-regard, they crave recognition both by the many and by the few who are like themselves. They are lovers of honor consumed by the passion to be looked upon as marvels and to outstrip those already honored, and in Bacon’s New Atlantis they are given what looks like free reign.
Bensalemite society is calculated to feed the envious natures of the Daedaluses. […] [T]o be fed in their vanity these Daedaluses must put their genius to one use only: the common good. […] Bensalemite society […] satisfies the Daedaluses only when they satisfy others, when they turn their pliable talents to the well-being of those not driven by implacable envy, the great majority driven by nothing higher than a desire for well-being and ease. The envious natures of the Daedaluses are turned to the common good when those natures are fed on all the honor and gratitude their beneficiaries can bestow. And Salomon’s House administers punishments as fitting as these rewards: behavior inappropriate to their powers brings ‘ignominy and fines’—wounded [vanity] and diminished wealth. Such rewards and punishments channel the genius of the Daedaluses by satisfying their natures; they are domesticated, made virtuous or civil by that novel, Baconian form of society that believes Daedalus’s gifts to be worthy of the highest public esteem.” (Laurence Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche, pp. 35-37.)