When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.
To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.
As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.
To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...
... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.