I like some of the nature religions. Hard to parse out the new additions from the originals but still, I give kudos to those who try at least.
Well, as long as the distinctions between “what’s ancient”, “what’s reconstructed” and “what’s new” are clearly known, I’m fine. It’s when people muddle them together and call them *all* authentic and ancient that I take issue, whatever it is that’s being practiced.
In my mid 20s that’s what led me to Eastern Orthodox Christian at the time. Same kind of process. I was looking at roots and ended up there. Stayed for years, loved it. Now basically agnostic, although I never technically ‘left’. I liked exploring roots.
There’s loads of bullshit masquerading as authentic and historical.
What I want to know is: Can you trace a continuity through time or is it an archeological reconstruction of what a religion such as this *might* be like and then putting it into practice?
Not wrong. Just being aware. Example with Islam: In my view of Islam, the organic Islam started gong away around the 12th century when the some “back to basics” folks started cropping up. They wanted to reconstruct it “by the book” and two centuries later, they’re the ones that overtook Constantinople. So, I’d call them Islam II.