Just like your predictable, jack-in-the-box condemnations.
Before you decide to pester me again, answer me this question: if "we're not that messed up" and require a regimen of human effort, law, and morality, then why in the sam hill did anyone think they needed to create a new one two thousand years ago when there was already a perfectly valid one whose laws and rites come directly from the Mouth of G-d?
Historically, the only alternatives are Judaism/Noahism and ancient liturgical chrstianity. Logically the only alternatives are Judaism/Noahism and Lutheran/Calvinist style Protestant chrstianity. Two chrstianities: one perfectly logical but ahistorical, and one historical but whose theology doesn't even give it a valid reason to exist.
Get back to me on that. And that's not even touching on the current rampant prejudice of the ancient churches against rural America and its inhabitants.
Well, I’m not sure what you mean, but if it’s that, in the post-modern era, Christianity has outlived its usefulness and even lost its former meaning, many people would not disagree. Is that a transition or a crisis?
Consider that what you perceive may have a lot to do with where you live. The Catholic Church is an international institution, and I doubt Catholics in Italy or India or Indonesia or Angola are much agitated about Protestant Fundamentalists.
Consider also that it has a lot to do with you. Somebody who comes to people demanding that they take his point of view has a way of dominating the conversation, and even if he doesn't, such a person will assume that his ideas are the center of all discussion.
And consider also the history. Do you really expect an institution that's been accused for centuries of obstructing science and free intellectual inquiry should simply reject two centuries of research and scholarship out of hand? Do you really think that would make for a better world or a better understanding of religion? Do you really think that Judaism or Christianity have always been hostile to scientific inquiry and scholarly investigation?
I also get that you thought that you had found some kind of primeval, ur-alt, original religion in Catholicism and then you came upon something even older, something so old that you assumed it couldn't be refuted (ignoring the fact that it couldn't be proved, either). Okay, good for you, but one has to wonder why you are forever tossing bricks back at the Catholics. Is it disappointed love, or just a way of indulging age-old anti-Catholic prejudices?
It's also clear that you regard yourself as some kind of great defender of Fundamentalists, even though you've attacked and even mocked their most cherished belief on several occasions. You'll have to admit that's a little strange, and hard to take. You want to have it both ways. You want to be the defender of simple Bible-believers, and also be the modern skeptic who sees through Christianity.
I guess that's what you think you have to do to get through life, but you might consider that it may strike other people as patronizing in the extreme. Evangelicals or Fundamentalists or Bible believers aren't the poor cowed victims that you make them out to be (when you're not dismissing or insulting them in your own way). They're part of the discussion, just like everybody else. If you really respected them, you wouldn't be forever reducing them to a caricature of helplessness and victimization.