I'm not going to mention his or her name, here is what he or she thinks about the ransom and it scares me. But this is what you get when you leave the truth for long time and I hope none of us headed this way:

"The first is the subject of the atonement. Like many modern theologians I have trouble with most traditional concepts of that doctrine. Paul and other New Testament writers used a variety of terms to explain the atonement, and it is sometimes quite difficult to comprehend how he and early Christians in general intended these to be applied. But more significantly, most traditional doctrines, including the ransom theory (or theories), tend to show God the Father as a hard, legalistic God who demands a human sacrifice to allow mankind to achieve salvation. Now the moral influence theory doesn't do that, and quite frankly I like it, but I can't simply deny that Paul (and other Bible writers) used the concept of the mercy seat in the temple, the passover lamb, the scapegoat, the ransom concept, blood atonement, and the Second Adam concept (from which Irenaeus developed his recapitulation doctrine and an idea that I like.)

The second doctrine that bothers me is the Millennium as variously interpreted. I cannot see for the life of me how anyone can reasonably argue what Witnesses and most Bible Students do by describing what is to happen during the thousand year reign of the saints. Revelation 20:5 tells us that "the rest of the dead did not come to life again until the thousand years were ended." So how in heck can the resurrection take place during the Millennium? The Bible Students, like C. T. Russell argued that this passage was spurious, something which no respectable textual critic nor even the Watchtower Society holds to be true today. The Witnesses hold, however, that this passage means that they do not become fully alive in God's eyes until they will have passed judgment and proved righteous. But that is an extremely novel explanation, especially since the exact word (tense and all) is used to describe how the saints who rule with Christ come to life in Revelation 20:4. So my contention is that if pre-millenarianism is true, then the resurrection must take place after the thousand years--an idea held by the Seventh-day Adventists. But because the only passage in the entire Bible that deals with the Millennium is Revelation 20, I feel I must examine a-millennialism and post-millennialism as well.

At this point I'm not sure what I believe about either the atonement (except that Christ died for us in some way) or the Millennium. However, I'm far more concerned about the former subject than the latter".