Do you really want me to list all of the possibilities? I'm not trying to force you to choose one of the ones I present. I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not justified.

You wrote "Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before."

You cannot make that simple connection. The Marvel comics co-opted Thor as a superhero. That does not make Marvel comics a continuation of Norse mythology, nor does it mean that watching "Thor: Ragnarok" is a form of religious service. The system of physical exercise called "yoga" in the Western world co-opted the physical motions of the branch of Hinduism called "Yoga", but the people doing yoga at the gym down the street are not meaningfully connected to the 2,000+ year old tradition.

Christians destroyed the sacred trees and groves which were a core part of Germanic paganism. They co-opted the (symbolic) power of Donar's Oak into wood for a church they built on the site. That isn't a continuation.

Charlemagne destroyed the Irminsul and ordered the massacre of 4,500 Saxon pagans as part of his campaign to Christianize the Saxons, and justified it as acting "like a true King of Israel" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden .

This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation. The cultural symbols were co-opted to demonstrate that a new power is in charge.

You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer support the physical building. What other option you would prefer?

You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the comment now is meant as sarcasm. But I am trying really hard to not cherry-pick the bad parts of religion, but rather trying to demonstrate that your statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history.

While it seems that you see me pointing to those counter-examples to your assertions, interpret it as cherry-picking, and so decide to cherry-pick in a tit-for-tat sort of dialog.

I don't think it's really correct to say "like many more recent socialist regimes, aimed to root out christianity and religion in general". Certainly early Marxist-Leninists in China and the USSR and its satellites were against all religions (as compared to all-but-one religion, as was the case in European countries for hundreds of years. Similarly, early republican countries, like the US and France, were also against religion. But looking at the list of officially socialist countries now, I see quite a few secular countries with strong support for at least one religion, and often support for the free practice of religion.

As you point out, we are talking about "actual people identifying with and practicing a living cultural heritage." My question again is, so what? Cultures change. There are always people who bemoan change. It's hard for me to have sympathy given the excellent records we have, the voluntary nature of the change, and given the long history of Christians stomping out older religions.

Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster lounge" instead of simply "lounge"?