1. Ten years ago, I would've called myself a "somewhat militant Dawkins-style atheist"

Today, I think I would call myself a "Born-again agnostic Christian"

For those of you at home for Easter (Matthew 28:6), here's a brief story of how that change of heart happened.

THREAD https://twitter.com/quotetoponder/status/1249132004450410497

2. I'm going to omit a *lot* of personal details here.

But long story short, I started to learn over time that some of my biggest objections to religion as a whole (and Christianity in particular) weren't anywhere near as airtight as I thought.

Some examples...

3. "Who created God?"

You can take literally anything we already know exists, and continue to ask questions about it's origin until you reach an unanswered question.

The fact that infinite regressions can be made by asking where something came from doesn't negate it's existence

4. Now that alone doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, it's simply an illustration that no belief system or lack thereof will have an answer for everything.

But that *by itself* doesn't make them less true.

Another objection I used to think held water was this:

5. "What happens to people that never hear about God?"

I doubt most Sunday school lessons even come close to answering this, but it turns out there is indeed an answer:

https://www.str.org/w/god-s-judgment-is-according-to-the-light-available

Christianity doesn't depend on believing certain people are doomed to "hell".

6. Then there's questions of how we know what the original copies of Bible texts actually say.

I used to think this wasn't possible, because like any unoriginal atheist at the time I had read a Bart Ehrman book and decided that issue was settled.

Turns out I was wrong.

7. What Bart Ehrman got wrong was insisting that countless "variations" in Biblical manuscripts literally refer to differences in meaning.

This isn't the case at all:

https://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

Most of those "variations" are trivial things like spelling differences for instance.

8. If you're into long video playlists that tackle this subject in detail, this may be one of the best on YouTube, if not THE best of it's kind:

8. The question of "other books" that were excluded from the Bible as we know it today was also an objection I used to have.

https://www.josh.org/lost-gospels-dont-belong-bible/



But that turns out to be less compelling of an objection than I thought...

9. What about Biblical contradictions?

I still think they exist, but most of the examples people give don't really qualify as such:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

Once again, the theme remains the same. I thought certain objections were compelling, but I can no longer endorse them.

10. What about pre-Christ mythologies that Christianity was supposedly "copied" from?

I used to think those were real knock-down arguments against Christianity because of clips like this:



Saw things like that in 2008, but didn't know how wrong they were

11. Turns out, the whole idea that Christianity was "copied" from prior religions doesn't really hold water.

This may be one of the most comprehensive rebuttals of that idea:

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

Along with this playlist:

12. What about the resurrection itself?

I'm not 100% sure on *why* that whole process was necessary theologically-speaking, but a somewhat reasonable historical case can be made that it really did happen:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130129011906/http://sententias.org:80/2012/04/07/historicity-of-the-resurrection/

That blog post basically changed my life.

13. There's so much more I could add to this thread, but for now I think this is enough to give people the basic idea.

I'm an "Agnostic Christian" because I don't know what I'm 100% certain about right now.

But I know I can't use the word "Atheist" to describe myself anymore