If you say you were a Christian in a "mystical" sense, does that mean you had some sort of religious experience that affected you?
Definitely. Although it could certainly be described as "psychological," "emotional" and "intellectual" as well as "religious". Moreover, on the religious side, I'm aware that most of the "light" was that of the Kingdom Hall burning -- which does not explain what started the fire, just its intensity and particular colours. But whatever "God," or rather "Christ," could actually stand for, was there to me.
Is that what stops you from breaking links with your former beliefs entirely?
It is, probably, a sort of "sacred" space in memory. But maybe you never break any link actually. I haven't bothered about JWs for nearly 20 years and now I am posting on an xJW forum (and mostly enjoying it so far). Time and "real life" make you "forget" just enough to be able to revisit the past from an ever fresh angle. Nostalgy, repentance, two sides of the same coin?
If you no longer consider yourself Christian, are you now a theist, deist or tending toward atheism or agnosticism?
Least of all a deist (Voltaire's clockmaker doesn't interest me at all). Metaphorically theist (both mono- and poly- I guess). Realistically atheist. Positively agnostic (I mean, not in the sense of wondering whether the God of theism or deism exists or not; rather, inasmuch as I believe any true religious "knowledge" to be the opposite of what we usually call "knowledge"). Should I add "gleefully nonsensical"?
Your journey sounds a lot like Richard Holloway's who is a bishop in the Episcopal church. He has described himself as a "recovering Christian". I have read a few of his books, the one I would recommend being Godless Morality: Keeping Religion out of Ethics where he spells out the nonsense of any claim to being able to construct a coherent ethical framework from the biblical data. (if you don't have a copy I would like to send you one) He has the dubious distiction of appearing to be the only religious figure of whom Richard Dawkins approves. Have you read Dawkins' new book by the way?
I have read neither (only a few articles by Dawkins, but as you have gathered I am not that interested by "realistic" debates on the "real" existence of a "real" God). The ethics/religion distinction is also important to me, although I tend to be more concerned with the "keeping ethics out of religion" side. Must give it a try...
I was surprised for instance you seem opposed to the efforts of Cesnur and American agencies to defend the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious minority in Europe. Taking sides with the European anti-cult movement over against religious toleration seems a rather extreme position to me. You seem to go along with those who would seek to label the Witnesses as dangerous or as a group about which society in generl should be concerned. My view is that they are simply a religious community who happen to take their faith seriously in an environment where most religious communities are rather watering down aspects of their beliefs and practices that may be objectionable to the consensus of modern liberal society. (women leaders, homosexual marriage/appointments, excusivity) The case could be made for France being the most secular country in the world, with very low religious participation rates indeed. It has a peculiar inheritance from the Enlightenment that means a continued strained relationship with communities taking "faith" seriously: a more enduringly peculiar path one could argue than even the former soviet states that are frequently referred to as displaying a premature secularity with subsequent reversals. The course of religious decline in Britain has been much more even and organic - resulting in a more healthy attitude toward faith communities and minorities (such as continue to persist) and religious toleration.
I agree with your analysis of the differences but, of course, not on the value judgement (as in "more healthy"). Each approach (to schematise, the English/American "communitarianism" vs. the French "individual citizenship") has its bright and dark sides. "Communities" are a valuable source of both social structure and diversity, but at the exorbitant cost of the individual member, especially children and otherwise dependent people. When I hear CESNUR- or other- sociologists defending "cults" in the name of social difference, I understand (and sometimes agree) in theory, but I can't help thinking of what it means, in practice, to the individual. I don't wish anybody a youth in a sectarian subculture because I happen to know what it can be.
That being said, I am not an anti-cult activist. I don't want JWs to be banned. But I think every kind of propaganda must be met with counter-information which should not stop at the border of "communities," because its most worthwile target is the individual who happens to be unhappily trapped within.
Have you tried to contact friends at Bethel?
Yes. That was not successful in general, but the occasional discreet wave was worth it.
