Seeker, whether you follow Christianity, Satanism (theistic or otherwise) or any other religion is something you will have to decide for yourself. But don't let any religion stop you from practicing magic, if you so choose.
Even if you choose to remain a Christian: The Bible is full of contradictions, such as forbidding the use of divination, yet requiring it of the Israelite priests; or of the fulfillment of Old Testament laws, therefore rendering them irrelevant according to some, yet still incorporating them in current dogma by the same folks. Hebrew culture, which became the influence in early Christianity, was deeply influenced by its varied past, and by the cultures of its slaves, captors, and neighbors.
I have some (as some would call it) pretty messed up opinions about Biblical history and some specific characters, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
That said, the Bible basically maintains that as long as you do not call upon any entity but one specific, then there's really no issue.
A very long time ago, people associated anything and everything with religion and spirituality. Certain methods were associated with "other" religions. The people of Israel were able to pray and make sacrifices, but communion with God was restricted to the priest class. And they did use divination (by use of the urim and thummim, as a direct example) and other practices now associated with different types of mysticism and magic (some believe they possibly scried using smoke in some cases). According to the New Testament, Jesus "opened the veil" to allow believers to contact God without the priests as an intermediary.
So ... to make a long post shorter, there is a lot of evidence -- both in the Bible as well as archaeologically -- which supports the use of magic as a believer in the Abrahamic God, in line with the laws set forth in the Bible.
When I was at Catholic school I started asking questions when I was about 12. The first thing that puzzled me was that the father of Jesus was "The Holy Ghost" not Joseph. But St Matthew gives the ancestry of Jesus,in great detail, from Abraham to JOSEPH!
From then on, Christianity, for me, fell like a House Of Cards!
I'm sure that a good handful of us have been in a similar situation too. The best advice that I can offer, from personal experience, is to go with the flow. Life is an exploration with many expeditions. Our views will change as we grow older and as we gain new bits of knowledge from experience. Some people will find a new home and some people will go back to their old home. The idea may not even to be to get Christianity out of your head. Your mind will dispose of it or lock it away when it no longer deems it to be of importance.
In other to complete a picture an artist must add shadows and light,good and bad must coexist to make life possible,simply let go and proceed it will be difficult at first but that fear will dissolve in time as do all fears the more you indulge in them.
Brysing, such things are why I question the history of Christianity. It is also evidence of the adoptionist theory -- which was the leading version of the tale for a while, before the establishment of Roman Catholocism, and some Christian sects still teach to this day -- in stead of the immaculate conception tale. Adoptionism teaches that Jesus may have been gifted or extra pious or whatever, and God took him in as son. The tale of his baptism in the River Jordan is another bit which follows adoptionist doctrine. In fact, the baptism of Jesus is the point at which adoptionists teach that Jesus became the son of God and more than just a man, sharing both his biological lineage through his parents and his lineage to God ... according to that particular teaching.
It lies in a deep, deep pile of evidence of editing and additions to Christian scriptures through the years.
Like I said, I believe something away from the mainstream about the historical Jesus character, but I believe I have enough at least circumstantial evidence to explain it, though it would take some time.
Brysing, perhaps it's a matter of semantics, then. I did not grow up Catholic, but I have learned that certain "Catholic" (as opposed to American Protestant) terms are more broadly understood.
The New Testament claims that Mary fell pregnant without lying with a man (that God literally made her pregnant) -- that was an immaculate conception, which resulted in her giving birth to Jesus.
Adoptionist teachings insist that Mary did conceive the natural way, and then God 'adopted' Jesus as an adult.
