That’s not what you said. This is what you said:
“As religion becomes more iberal and less an identification with the church, it’s focus shifts from obedience to a centralized political authority (the pope in the case of Catholicism) to an increasinglly uncontrollable and unverifyable authority of God in oneself - it’s ultimate consequence in (the likes of) Spinoza, who rejects all influence from outside as coming from God, arguing that the only holy law man can know is what his body dictates. As God becomes more an object of experience and less of worship, morality grows from public to private. Secular law becomes irrelevant: crime.”
Neither.
“The criminal character of a Christian increases when he approaches knowledge [die Wissenschaft]. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.”
This means that the philosopher is the one who approaches knowledge most closely.
“What, at bottom, is the whole of modern philosophy doing? Since Descartes—and indeed rather in spite of him than on the basis of his precedent—all philosophers have been making an assault on the ancient soul concept under the cloak of a critique of the subject-and-predicate concept—that is to say, an assault on the fundamental presupposition of Christian doctrine. Modern philosophy, as an epistemological skepticism, is, covertly or openly, anti-Christian”.
[BGE 54.]
“Crime” - and this is where you have misunderstood him - does not mean crime in the usual sense here; it means crime against Nietzsche’s new moral order (otherwise, what would Nietzsche care about assassination attempts on public morality? He would rather encourage them! He would want for them to succeed!). And as for philosophy being offensive:
"My attitude to the past, like that of all lovers of knowledge, is one of great tolerance, that is, magnanimous self-mastery: with gloomy caution I go through the madhouse world of whole millennia, whether it be called “Christianity,” “Christian faith,” or "Christian church"—I am careful not to hold mankind responsible for its mental disorders. But my feeling changes, breaks out, as soon as I enter modern times, our time. Our time knows better… What was formerly just sick is today indecent—it is indecent to be a Christian today. And here begins my nausea.— I look around: not one word has remained of what was formerly called “truth”; we can no longer stand it if a priest as much as uses the word “truth.” If we have even the smallest claim to integrity, we must know today that a theologian, a priest, a pope, not merely is wrong in every sentence he speaks, but lies—that he is no longer at liberty to lie from “innocence” or “ignorance.” The priest too knows as well as anybody else that there is no longer any “God,” any “sinner,” any “Redeemer"—that “free will” and “moral world order” are lies: seriousness, the profound self-overcoming of the spirit, no longer permits anybody not to know about this… All the concepts of the church have been recognized for what they are, the most malignant counterfeits that exist, the aim of which is to devalue nature and natural values; the priest himself has been recognized for what he is, the most dangerous kind of parasite, the real poison-spider of life… We know, today our conscience knows—, what these uncanny inventions of the priests and the church are really worth, what ends they served in reducing mankind to such a state of self-violation that its sight can arouse nausea: the concepts “beyond,” “Last Judgment,” “immortality of the soul,” and “soul” itself are instruments of torture, systems of cruelties by virtue of which the priest became master, remained master… Everybody knows this: and yet everything continues as before. Where has the last feeling of decency and self-respect gone when even our statesmen, an otherwise quite unembarrassed type of man, anti-Christians through and through in their deeds, still call themselves Christians today and attend communion?.. A young prince at the head of his regiments, magnificent as an expression of the selfishness and conceit of his people—but, without any shame, confessing himself a Christian!.. Whom then does Christianity negate? What does it call “world”? That one is a soldier, that one is a judge, that one is a patriot; that one resists, that one sees to one’s honor; that one seeks one’s advantage; that one is proud… Every practice of every moment, every instinct, every valuation that is translated into action is today anti-Christian: what a miscarriage of falseness must modern man be, that he is not ashamed to be called a Christian in spite of all this! — — —”
[AC 38.]
The philosopher is supposed to be the man with the greatest intellectual conscience, the greatest intellectual integrity. This means that, if he confesses himself a Christian, he is the most shameless, the least decent, least self-respecting man, and thereby the most offensive man to Nietzsche’s taste.
HAIL NIETZSCHE!