Chaotica wrote:
Too long for a term
but I think that the heathen religions already existing would not change their names, they are much older than Christianity
Technically speaking, the heathen religions are all reconstructions, since "heathen" refers specifically to Germanic pagans of the British Isles, but that's being exceptionally picky over the matter. However, it does raise the reality that the vast majority of these alleged "pagan" religions practiced in the industrialized world are really quite new, 20th-century inventions. They like to claim ancient lineage, but if non-Christians want to quibble about Christianity laying claim to Judaic traditions and lineage, then we have to hold the pagans to the same standard, and they have to admit that they are only about 80-90 years old, at most (with a scant few going back to the Theosophy of the 19th century).
There are pagan religions that can legitimately and verifiably trace living traditions going way back into the mists of time, but I can only think of one Western one--one form of Asatru that is practiced in Iceland. Nothing else in the Western Indo-European religious traditions survived to the modern era--it was all rebuilt in the 20th century.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it's silly for groups that knock the claims of Christianity to an ancient lineage to then turn around and claim an even more ancient lineage for themselves. I look upon groups that do make such claims with the same amusement as I do for various Christian organizations arrayed around some
Episcopos Vagante or another, or that
Vagante's descendents. You may have heard of these groups, they go around collecting "lineages" of questionable ordinations and display them proudly in an attempt to legitimize themselves in the eyes of Christian groups that can just go to their archives and at very least prove a lineage of ordination going back up to a millenium and a half.
It's a lot like these self-styled "chivalric orders" that claim to be continuations of various crusading Orders of knighthood that were centuries ago disbanded or simply died out. Whenever they're asked to prove their claims, it's always the same song-and-dance. "We were persecuted, so all our records had to be kept word-of-mouth. You're just prejudiced against us, anyway. You're a puppet/tool/agent of the Great Conspiracy against us."
If your group can't prove existence before 1932, what's wrong with that?