I appreciate your reflections on this. I agree that some religious framework is probably a healthy thing, but that doesn't mean it should be theistic, let alone Christian. I argue for a pantheistic, transhuman and existential sensibility as being more consistent with science and with the modern zeitgeist.

As a metaphor the Gnostic aspect of Christianity (its emphasis on resurrection into a higher form of being) would be consistent with what I'd call a nobler, more modern religion. But the literalistic kind of Christianity seems to me obsolete. The notion that Jesus alone was divine misses the spiritual depth of the Christian metaphor. It's a distortion of the lesson taught by the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions, which was the origin of Christianity's core message about Jesus.

The Christian point should be that we're all potentially divine, and that point would be consistent with pantheistic, cosmicist, existential transhumanism (my framework). Focussing on Jesus's divinity is a way for the Church to enslave the Christian flock by belittling them in relation to "God."

I agree that consumerism is in some ways the opposite of a spiritual perspective. My point in the article is that secular ideologies have irrational foundations, just like theistic religions. What we should be looking for is the best irrational foundation for a worldview that works with what we now know about ourselves and the universe. At that level, worldviews should be judged by ethical and aesthetic criteria, not Christianity's pseudo-historical ones.