Quoted By:
>architecturally (but not doctrinally) similar to pre-Schismatic Christianity
What I mean by this is that early European Christianity (from its adoption as official religion of the Roman Empire to the Great Schism) had a decent enough structure. Regardless of where the religion was practiced, it was linked together either by Latin or Greek (Greek made more sense, since the New Testament was written in Greek) and similar practices. I think a new religion for Whites/Europeans should resurrect Proto-Indo-European for this role (only with a better, less syllabic name). There are also commonalities to all Indo-European peoples that could unite White religionists.
Not doctrinally similar because Christianity preaches universalism, equality, and spiritual liberalism (which evolves into secular liberalism/humanism). There are some aspects that are applicable because Christianity is Judaism for Greeks/Hellenized cultures. Rome was Hellenized, and Christianity spread through its empire (among others).
>updated to reflect new knowledge of the world and history
Because so much of human knowledge has changed since the foundation of major religions, the response to updated worldviews is often either irreligion or to corrupt existing religions to the point of their being untenable. A lot of philosophy came out of European minds trying to make sense of an inherently Judaic religion, which helped mold it into a less Judaic religion (but not an un-Judaic religion). That philosophy is valid, even if the religion it was trying to make sense of is not.