.: posted 1/29/2006 ::: by webmdave :::   

 SpaceMonk wrote:

Yes, this does need to be pointed out.
I for one am not one of those who left christianity because of bad treatment by people in my church.

I dumped it because it's theology is screwed up.
It's primitive and confused.

Yes, I originally left my congregation because I dind't get along with the people, and I never joined another one.
However I still considered my self a christian, I prayed, I believed, had faith, I thought I saw God's blessings in every little thing that happened to me, etc... I loved this God.

Until I went online and found out that it just wasn't really like that.

It was the contradictions in what I thought had been the infallible, inspired, Word of God that first got me questioning.

Once you get the ability to question back it's game over for christianity.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

In response to:
Problem 1: Books of the New and Old Testament were written by ACTUAL PEOPLE, not puppets whose hands were moved by God to record stories. No, they interpreted stories in their own ways and reworked them to reflect some sort of message they wanted to send through it. The Gospels were written about 50 years after Jesus was alive, and the writers had different sources and different ideas. All that really matters is that they believed. Furthermore, I don’t believe that the Bible is at all intended to be the only book to guide us. We need to carry on so much more knowledge into reading the Bible, knowledge that we attain from living, from learning, from reading other texts, from experiencing. A book does not define God. There are millions and millions of writings that can teach us something about God.
Problem 2: Literally? Think metaphorically, son…
Problem 3: Interpret writings anthropologically. The Old Testament is simply a record of human-divine history, still developing, still happening. Sadly, people are literally and blindly following.

I know I’m being vague, but it’s late and I randomly stumbled upon this and had an urge to respond quickly. Feel free to respond.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 SpaceMonk wrote:

Anon: "Books of the New and Old Testament were written by ACTUAL PEOPLE, not puppets whose hands were moved by God to record stories."

Derr...

"...Sadly, people are literally and blindly following."

Which is the point. To show that it isn't worthy of such.

You seem to be a more balanced than fundy, so this article wouldn't apply to you.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 Chris L. wrote:

Here's a question that always stumps them. Whenever I ask a fundie to prove the Bible is "the word of God", I am always quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.")

Instead of pointing out the intellectual idiocy of quoting the Bible to prove the Bible, I ask them this:

"The Bible started out with 72 books until Martin Luther removed six of them, making the protestant Bible 66 books. 2 Timothy 3:16 existed within the Bible BEFORE Luther removed those six books. Since the verse says that ALL scripture is given by God, doesn't that mean that Martin Luther disobeyed scripture by removing those books?"

I have never received an adequate answer.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 LadySidhe wrote:

You forgot to mention the part where God "hardened the pharoah's heart," in order to show off His power.

The pharoah couldn't have agreed if he WANTED to, because God did not allow him the free will to do so.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 carol wrote:

My favorite babble stupidity is the story of the fig tree in the NT. Forgive me if my memory is a bit off, the dispicable babble is not allowed in my home and I haven't read any of it in ages.

The jist is that Jeebus is hungry and finds a fig tree. It isn't fig season and the tree has no fruit. So his highness gets pissed and kills the tree.

First, it isn't fig season! Second, if he is gawd, why didn't he just make the tree bear fruit?

Whata moron Jeebus is, some diety.

Finally, this story is in two books, one being Mark, I think. In one of the books the tries dies rather quickly. In the other book, it takes days/weeks. WTF?

Most xains don't know this story. Wonder why?

Hi, Boomslang, I've missed you.

Regards, carol

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 freedy wrote:

Most honest theologians,(christian and jew),teach the old testament as mythology.How these fundies can continue to decieve people is not a mystery.
The literal interperation of the bible has become mainstream because of tele-evangelists. People believe everything they hear & see on T.V.!

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Hey Carol...what's shakin'?...yeah, it seems jebus isn't exactly "Omnipatient", is he? LOL! The story that always get's a chuckle out of me is in the "science" section..i.e. Genesis. I'm not going to post it verbatim because I think I used that chapter to line my cat's litter box---but it goes something to the tune of my great, great, great, great, grandmother was hiding from God in the garden one day---I think it was right after she had just got done chatting with the snake---and in comes Mr. "Omniscient", saying: "Where art thou?"....or some crap like that.

Huh!...that's a good one.....hiding from "God". This guy'll f%ck up a game of hide-n-seek?.... and he's supposed to run the universe????? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 carol wrote:

Not much new shakin, boom, still making all kinds of typos.

Hey, you reminded me of an old joke:

Adam and Eve had sex for the first time and gawd came down to see how they liked it. He saw Adam and asked him how it was.

Adam says, "Oh, lard, it was great. Thank you for such a wonderful gift."

"Good, good, my son," replies gawd, "but where is Eve?"

"She went down to the river to wash up," answers Adam.

"Dammit," exclaims gawd,"Now I'll never get the smell out of the fish!"

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 Scott wrote:

Sorry, Mike, I wish I could help you out, but from time to time I've dealt with very much the same issues. Fortunately they never got in the way of my belief cause my belief never hinged solely on the Bible. I never came to believe in Christ that way...i.e., reading in a book and deciding to believe. If that works for some, then God and His love be with 'em. I was more or less kicked in the ass supernaturally, leaving no doubt whatsoever to His existence as Lord over all, so when it came to reading the Bible, it was more or less like a road map to navigate to some extent the course in life to take...not a book in which to stake my soul. That had to be more real for me...and it was. I could never make you, or anyone else understand, cause the experience was a gift from God to me. Hope you understand to that extent, and I wish you all the best in your pursuit -- be it intellectual or spiritual or maybe some of both. But if you're looking for me or anyone else to explain the Bible--- Ha! Good Luck. I'll be reading with interest what some have to say. Peace

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 SpaceMonk wrote:

Yes, of course, now all the non-fundies come out.

I've visited several apologetics forums and have found it is mostly only the non-literalists who bother responding to these types of threads.
True fundies are too slippery to get a hold of with such direct methods.

So the gospel is not inerrant?
So what?

So why trust any of the claims of this corrupt document when it is clearly written by fallible men?

What makes it more of a guide for our path in life over any other religious text?
- let alone our own conscience?

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 SpaceMonk wrote:

In 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 King David counts how many soldiers are in his army.
This makes his god so angry he sends a great punishment on the nation of Israel.

Surely it’s just responsible stewardship for the king to know how big his army is?

So it seems David’s sin was pride. So pride must be a capital offence in the eye’s of bible-god, because he sent a plague that wiped out 70,000 men of Israel.

They didn’t know anything about it but, according to the bible, God killed them for it.
(70,000 men is about 23 X September 11!)

So what happened to the perpetrator of such a 'heinous crime', David himself?
Nothing.

This whole story is just another example of something terrible happening (like a plague) and the people thinking, “Oh no! The God’s are angry! We must have done something to offend them, etc...", just like every other culture who worships gods of their own design.

Some apologists say that bible-god was already angry with Israel for their sinfulness and so created this incident to punish them - so none of the 70,000 were really 'innocent'...

So why didn't he punish them for that in the first place?
Why perpetuate further 'sin'?
I thought bible-god hates sin?
He even hired the devil to corrupt them further...

This shows the deeply flawed character of bible-god, not just a contradiction between verses.

...but here are some of the contradictions involved in this passage anyway:

Who moved David to number Israel?
God did: 2 Samuel 24:1
Satan did: I Chronicles 21:1

How many soldiers did Joab count in Israel's army?
1,100,00: 1 Chron 21:5
800,000: 2 Sam 24:9

How many soldiers did Joab count in Judah's army?
470,000: 1 Chron 21:5
500,000: 2 Sam 24:9

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Good stuff, Carol. There's a never ending supply of joke material in them thar pages, I reckon.

On a serious---but yet, still somewhat amusing note---there's always those who say they've actually had a "supernatural" experience. Of course, the critical thinker knows that that's a contradiction in and of itself.....with "Supernatural" meaning, BEYOND physical observation. Thus, if one "experiences" something with the "natural" senses--the physical senses---then by definition, it cannot be a "supernatural" experience.

posted: January 30, 2006 EST  

 frredy wrote:

Ladysidhe,in the new testament gaud turns people over to a
reprobate mind.Once again taking away their freewill status.

posted: January 31, 2006 EST  

 freedy wrote:

Carol, I guess you've heard the common spin on the fig tree verse,that jeeebus was refering to
Israel and their fruitless backsliding.If you look how he's treated his chosen people,.. me
thinks he was nicer to the tree!!

posted: January 31, 2006 EST  

 carol wrote:

Yup, Freedy, heard that xian explanation. They always manage to fabricate something to try to make their babble bullshit make some kind of sense, don't they?

Boom, "supernatural" when these folks say it means "mental illness." They need therapy or medication, not churches.

I so dispise religion and the awful things it does to people and society.

Regards, carol

posted: January 31, 2006 EST  

 freedy wrote:

Scott,..I too thought I had a extreme conversion experience,or like they say in A.A.,.. I was beaten into submission".
I now know it was may own hysterical and desperate situation that convince me that this was supernatural.Like Carol said,.. I was mentally ill.
The born-again experiance is not supernatural,..no more than being born from the womb. People are born again many times in their lives,socially,spirtually,intellectually etc...Your kick in the ass experiance is the same thing that happens to muslims,buddists,and in all religions.

posted: January 31, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

problem 1:

Regarding your contradiction about how many demon possessed men there were,who lived in those caves,and who came running out to Jesus?

In fact there is good reason to believe that there would have been more than just two Demon-possesed individuals?

First lets bear in mind,just why did men like that end up living in those caves? its all part of the explanation.The jews had some strange theories about where the soul went after death!And they believed that the soul walked around in dark places on earth,for a period of one year,some say?

And for one,why do you think that any jew would even bother hearding pigs,never mind eating them? You will know that the jew was forbidden to even make money out of the sale of them? never mind handle them.

Yes Mark and Luke only mentioned one man! and matthew mentioned two men! Now,what do we make of this seemingly contradiction?

For now,i must end,but i will get back to this thread as soon as pos!

posted: January 31, 2006 EST  

 Scott wrote:

Freedy said: "Scott,..I too thought I had a extreme conversion experience,or like they say in A.A.,.. I was beaten into submission".
I now know it was may own hysterical and desperate situation that convince me that this was supernatural.Like Carol said,.. I was mentally ill.
The born-again experiance is not supernatural,..no more than being born from the womb. People are born again many times in their lives,socially,spirtually,intellectually etc...Your kick in the ass experiance is the same thing that happens to muslims,buddists,and in all religions."

Can't disagree with a thing... as a matter of fact, I believe it was Cicero who said, 'There are many births and deaths within one life.'

Though I'd hardly categorize my conversion as being beaten into submission, since I was alone on the night in question and have never had a tendency to be too hard on myself (even, perhaps, when I deserve it!)

No one ever dared speak to me about Christ or God or getting saved cause they didn't want to run the risk of me getting violently agitated. I'd seen some disturbing things in my youth, and I was never in the mood to hear about God's goodness. I was uneven and hot tempered and, at 25, was still spry and fit enough to do damage on more than one occasion. (I came to the Lord at age 25 back in '79.)

If I could fully articulate the events of that evening back in June I surely would... but suffice to say, they were real enough to me, and since I'm the only one who's chosen to let those events dictate the manner in which I choose to live... well, that's a principle I've learned to adhere to...Live and Let Live. Thanks for the courteous and polite response. Peace

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

To the anonymous messenger just above, while you may be right about Jewish thought at that time, I am still looking for an explanation as to why the Christian Bible has so many inconsistencies and contradictions. Even if they can all be explained away eventually bvy some biblical scholar quoting the original greek text, I still have a problem with the fact that the Bible, the response to which is supposed to determine our destination for all eternity, is so unclear. You would have thought that, if god wanted us all to be saved, he'd make sure his message was crystal clear!!

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Sandy W wrote:

Spacemonk wrote: "I for one am not one of those who left christianity because of bad treatment by people in my church."

Me neither.

I dumped it because it's theology is screwed up.
It's primitive and confused."

Me too. Psalm 137:8-9 should be enough to make ANY CARING person question the bible.

Psalm 137:8-9" O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."

To the bible LITERALIST I would say, "Do you not realize that this statement is EXACTLY how radical Muslim TERRORISTS view life? Are you blind?" I don't give a shit if the Babylonians were/are enemies of the Israelites or not, what a HORRIBLE and CRUEL saying this is. How disgusting and vile!

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

hi

Let me try to give you one or two explanations for what seems to show us Contradiction?

There isnt one really you know!

1.Lets have a look at the argument of how many women came to the sepulchre?..in (John 20:1) this passage tells us that there was one woman who came to the sepulchre.

But in (Matt 28:1) it says that two women came to the sepulchre?

Does this mean that someone somewhere got it wrong? no!
an absolute no!

John does not say that ONLY Mary Magdalene went to the tomb.Failing to mention someone doesnt necessarily mean that no one else was near by?

In fact if you read a little further on in this chapter,you would see that Mary wasnt alone!

"So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple,the one Jesus loved,and said,"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,and we dont know where they put him!"

If Mary was alone,then who is the WE that she speaks of?

Clearly more than one person went with mary.John just dosnt mention them.

In (Mark 16:1)It says that there were THREE women who came to the sepulchre.

but in (Luke 24:10) it says there were MORE than THREE women who came to the sepulchre?

Again,the same approach applies to both these incidents.

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Anonymous,

A prosecutor or a defense attorney would have a field day with your witnesses.

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

As the person who laid down the challenge, I have to say that I not convinced by the response of the Christians so far. They have completely failed to answer problems 2 and 3, and have failed to explain why so many contradictions exist in the bible, (problem 1). Although it MAY be possible to explain away one or two of the contradictions, I am waiting for a christian to explain why there are so many in a book that is meant to provide the basis for belief in Jesus, and is the means by which god is meant to judge us. C'mon guys, I thought you were meant to stand up for the faith.....

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 freedy wrote:

To anonymous @6:27 a.m.,.."If god wanted all of us to be saved,he would make sure his message was crystal clear."
I can tell you the fundie answer for that.They believe god uses these contradictions & un-
clear doctrine to hide the "word"
from those who are insincere, or unworthy to recieve him.
Like I've said before,"they have an answer for everything."

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

hi

Regarding how many angels were there within the tomb?

In (John 20:11,12) There were two angels.

But in (mark 16:5) There was only one angel seen.

So how do we fathom this out?....simple! these two accounts arnt talking about the same incident!

Johns account was especcially talking of Mary.(when she followed peter and john back to the tomb)

Oh! By the way,this account of John's,was much later than the account of Marks incident.

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anon-Fundy said:

"Hi

Let me try to give you one or two explanations for what seems to show us contradiction? "

Let me try to give you one or two explanations of why your "shoe-horning" draws a false conclusion, and why it won't work on EX-Christians.

To begin with, the premise that an all-powerful "Divine" being would have so much ambiguity in "His word", is absurd. And for those who would posit that his Highness' ambiguity is some sort of "faith test", ask yourself: Is it A) more likely that a God wrote the bible and is just having a little fun testing us?....or is it B) more likely that a bunch of drunk Bronze-aged fisherman wrote the bible and made an abortion out of making it remotely believable? Hmmm...I'll go with "B".

Secondly, it doesn't matter HOW many people---nor does it matter if there is ever agreement on how many people---"witnessed" the infamous "tomb", for a "resurrection" defies logic, physics, and science...and therefore falls into the realm of the supernatural/mythological....i.e. "Osiris was resurrected."

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

hi

Regarding the question of the two men who were possed of demons,who came out the tombs threatening Jesus fiercly.

We know that mark and luke only mentioned ONE man.But,that isnt contrary to matthews account.

At times,even humans describe an event that we might have seen,but fail to mention everyone involved.

We must bear in mind,that Mark and Luke dont say that there was ONLY one man? Perhaps,the reason why they only take notice of the one man,was because he came over has the most fiercest of the two? He caught the eye so to speak.

It seems that he was the greater threat to christ,didnt he have the most legions of demons inside of him.

And we can take it that christ would have been more concerned to deal with him(the leader of the pack,so to speak)

After all,Christ would have been more glorifed if his power was seen in his casting out of the legions of demons.

Maybe,all the eyes were on this one wicked,malignant demon possessed man,who would (no doubt)have tried it on with christ. Maybe even daring christ to fight him? qgpIFH

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Melissa wrote:

Anony #8,099 said:"In fact there is good reason to believe that there would have been more than just two Demon-possessed individuals?"

As if your humble human assertions are great enough to validate a divinely inspired contradiction?

Do share with us those "good reasons to believe" that people can actually be invaded by demons, as I and a majority of mankind have yet to factually witness and/or document these mysterious human manifestations of evil incarnate.

Well, besides the ones that are produced in Hollywood.

It is more likely this piece of the story was an attempt to explain away a human ailment that had not been identified at that time. Those people suffering from a serious mental illness could not be distinguished as such, because they lacked the knowledge to diagnose it for what it was.

To ancient people, everything was explained by superstition and myth.

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

In Anon-Fundy's "rebuttal" he/she says:

"We know... (insert arbitrary passage of bibliocrap)"

You don't "know" jack, Jack. The "Holy Bible" is a man-made mythological bunch of fables, parables, and science-fiction. There are no devils, demons, or imps. The only "evil" is when things are done that harm and/or stunt the growth of humanity. Self-induced ignorance does both.

If you exist God, please strike me dead before I finish this sente....














PSYCHE!!!!! LOL!!!!

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 carol wrote:

Ha, Ha, Boom! That was good!

Funny this topic came up. Last night I watched "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" and it was very good. I highly recommend it, it is kind of a science vs superstition tale and it was very well done.

Per fundies, you can't take the wholey babble literally, except when you should take it literally, but it is often mistakenly taken out of context, except when out of context is needed to correct contradictions, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Regards, carol

posted: February 01, 2006 EST  

 Skip wrote:

Need an Angel? Dial 1-777-An-Angel

Had the pilgrims brought with them the Koran, then America would be a muslim nation right now.

The Bible happens to be the Book of foolishness accepted by most Americans.

Can anyone fathom that we have grown adults and political leaders believing in such nonsense in 2006, such as ghosts, angels, saints, souls, spirits, miracles, demons, blessings, prayer, prophesy, prophets, baptism, circumcision, divine inspiration, resurection from the dead, healings, being saved, speaking in tongues, talking snakes and donkeys, people called by an invisible god?

Aren't we all insane enough as it is, now add religion and beliefs to an already screwed up society?

What is wrong with people neeeding a belief? What is missing in peoples lives that need an imaginary savior, or invisible god?

How does an imaginary friend save you? Is it like a Teddy Bear friend that will always comfort you in a time of needless fear?

Why do people need a comfort savior to guard them from their playpen boogy man mentality?

We have adult grown men and women that cry like a baby when someone points out that their religion is fake or false.

How can a sane person claim that a god and jesus and satan exists?

Why are there millions of totally insane Americans claiming to have had a personal divine experience?

Where has humanity failed to recognize blatant insanity?

How can a society expect to continue to function as a rational enity that believes in invisible beings and ancient mythology?

Will we continue into the year 3000 still believing in imaginary beings without a single thread of proof for over 3000 years of a god and a jesus savior?

Why do people have a desire to believe in something, and stake their very life on a promise that will never be kept?

What is wrong with the human mind?

How did so many humans loose their common sense?

America is a nest bed of lunatics.

Americans are religious brainwashed zombies.

America is a lie, living in a lie, perpetrating a lie, soaking in lies.

America is festering pot of pseudo christians.

America is the flagship of foolishness.

America will destroy itsself by turning the other cheek.

America will die by wallowing in their religious beliefs.

America has let religion destroy America.

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Skip said...,
"Can anyone fathom that we have grown adults and political leaders believing in such nonsense in 2006, such as ghosts, angels, saints, souls, spirits, miracles, demons, blessings, prayer, prophesy, prophets, baptism, circumcision, divine inspiration, resurection from the dead, healings, being saved, speaking in tongues, talking snakes and donkeys, people called by an invisible god?"

I feel your pain brother! I feel your pain!
Dan

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

I can not seriously call myself a christian anymore. But how to find meaning in life now that I am not a christian, well, let's just say I am having something of a nihilistic crisis. Be interested to hear from others who are experiencing or have experienced this when they tossed in the christian towel. Particularly interested in hearing from older people or at least mature. I don't feel free and liberated. Not that I did as a christian either but at least for a while, I had the comfort of *something* I thought for a long time to be true and it provided a focus, a clinging pole, a reason for tolerating existence.
It wasn't the contradictions that put me off as much as the growing, horrible realisation that what I was basing my faith in was really just what I had allowed myself to be indoctrinated into believing at a much younger, more vulnerable age and was open game for the evangalists and self-professed missionaries. I believed anything I was told if it came with an "I/we love you" because I was downright bloody love-starved, uneducated and inexperienced.
Recently, I heard a woman being interviewed on a radio program. She had been a catholic nun who after about ten years, left the convent, the fold and became a prostitute. An amazing story told by an equally amazing and brave individual. Later after that, she came to the self-realisation that even this choice was really partly something of an over-reaction to having been cloistered and repressed as a nun but more deeply an acting out of an unconscious kind of self-brutalisation (in the name of re-claiming her sensuality, of course) because of the abuses she had undergone at the hands of her father and her ineffective mother, as a child. However, she seems to have come out of all of this as a remakably together, loving human being living a fulfilling and meaningful life.

The path of the nihilist is definately one I don't want to tread. But honestly, where to, from here?

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Anonymous, the one who has cest being a christian.

What you are feeling is natural during the deprogramming phase. You have been steeped into the doctrine for so long that you will feel the effects of withdrawal.

My greatest sense of "freedom" was that I no longer saw myself as part of some small "click". It was no longer my denomination versus someone else's denomination. It is now a complete understanding that we are all humans in the same boat, so to speak. I am able to see the larger picture of mankind instead of the myopic view from a christian stand point.

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Ben wrote:

Dear Anonymous of 6:43am, yes there is a feeling of nothingness, but you have you now, you have reclaimed your internal self. You are free from the self induced limitations instilled in you by the brainwashed moron christians.

Now that you no longer need a crutch or an excuse to be judged by the selfrighteous morons.

You can now enjoy your life as never before imagined, do what you want to do as long as it hurts no one and especially you.

Go concur the world, become rich, do things you never thought possible, think about things that you were not allowed to think and do.

Write a book about your past experiences and share your knowledge with others, examine what it was that caused you to fall for the religious nonsense in the first place. Now that you know what it was, your mind will become more clearer and able to think with an open mind, and you will see how many religious idiots there are and just think how lucky you are by not being a mind warped religious robot. Your mind is your god now and it listens to you, not what some brainwashed fundy has told you. Do what you know is right and become the person that you were intended to be, before the mind snatchers got in.

Close the door on all religions, religions only offer mind control and manipulation, they offer no peace or freedom, just the opposite.

You now own the must valuable possession on the Earth, a clear mind, you have you back now, go do anything that your free mind desires enjoy your life to the fullest for yourself and for us all here, you deserve it.

Please keep in contact with us here, we are here for you, we will not lie to you, we will feed you truth and understanding. Your Friend Always, Ben

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Anonymous (Who doesn't want to be a Nihilist), and wants to hear from older ex-Christians.

I am 70, but there are a few regulars here, some who are not as intellectually lazy as I, who will chime in as soon as they see your post.

I never have really bought into the Christian myth, but remained wishy washy until a few years ago, when I started to read on the Internet, all of the brilliantly articulated reasons for regarding it as pure nonsense. Now, the only thing that would change my mind, would be if JC himself appeared on the evening news and explained himself. ( And then I would have to wait for the critiques from the news anchors)

I cannot imagine that a God who created the universe, and put into motion 4 billion years of evolution of life hear on earth, suddenly being very concerned about the latest primate to climb onto the top of the food chain. What I am saying is that it is damn egotistical of us to think he is overly concerned about what our primitive philosophical beliefs are. We have come a long way from that first molecule that learned to reproduce itself, and at least we ARE thinking.

As far as what do you do now that you don't have your make believe Daddy up in the sky. I just like to believe that any force that can create an infinite universe, would have to know what she is doing.

What I am certain of is people who lived 2,000 years ago, did the best that they could with explaining the natural world, and down through history some brilliant and brave men have amended the story, and it is still an ongoing thing. We don't believe, the mostly Pagan concepts of the Bible anymore, but as we speak, there are some pretty smart people out there who are working on the problem of What we should be thinking about.

I believe the Billy Grahams, and other preachers mean well for the most part, but we all will go to same place when we die. Any God that I could believe in would not punish me for using the very same faculties of reason that it created in me in the first place. He wouldn't expect me to swallow a bunch of primitive beliefs, so that I could go to heaven and tell it how wonderful it is for an eternity.

I still make mistakes, but I don't call them sins. I still want to be rich and healthy and experience pleasure, but I don't feel quilt about it. In short, I think my God wants me to live as well and as smart as I can. If not then WHY am I here. The mystery of life and the struggle to live each day as well as I can are enough for me.

It would just be to much work for me to paste a happy grin on my face every day and go around saying a bunch of crap that I knew was crap, like some of the evangelicals do.
Dan

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Swiss Christian wrote:

Hello from another part of the world!

I am quite happy to visit this site, because in fact I think I can understand why some of you became ex-christian.

Fortunately, never in my life did my parents, myself or God forbid me to think about my faith; at the same time, I came (and am still on the way) to know God and live with him, receive his love and forgiveness (I bet many of understand clearly what I mean).

I am a big Bible reader, and I identified many of the contradictions you mention and did not flee before reflexion.

First, I think the idea of the Bible as "litterally exact,inspired word by word " ...and so on... has no Biblical basis!
This is how muslims see the Coran, but it is unconsistant with the way our God usually works with people.

I do think the Bible is inspired, bt for me "inspired" means that God gave such help into it's writing that it is a (or the most!) valid guide for faith and life.
But who needs to know the name of Jesus' grandfather, or the exact number of people he healed at a certain place?
The Bible tells us everything that needs to be known with reliability, but there are many things that have no use for us, and therefore no need for God to certify their accuracy.

Somebody pointed out that perfect concordance between several witnesses shows that they have been made out of scratch, whereas various people reporting about the same event will always say some unconsistant things.


I grew up in an evangelical church, of which I am stil a member, and I saw many preachers saying "not-so-correct" thing, and some people looking at reflexion as if it was a danger for faith. But I think reflexion is something a christian needs to grow in maturity. So I understand that at some time, one cannot prevent oneself to "doubt" the official dogma. (and in fact, one should'nt either)

My point is: are you really reacting against God himself, or against a (sheeply?) way to consider faith?
Have come to consider evidences against God, or to doubt some (respectively many/all)sayings about Him?
I see you don't like "fundies" here; although they are brothers to me, they sometimes really bother me too!
In God's Love,

A friend frow overseas

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Swiss Christian,
Thank you Swiss for reinforcing my belief, that the longer a person gives up rational thought, the more difficult it becomes for them to articulate any thought process that isn't full of holes.
Dan

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Dan wrote:

Swiss Christian wrote

"....there are many things that have no use for us, and therefore no need for God to certify their accuracy."

Why then are those things even part of the "word of god"??

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Dano,
I whole heartly agree.

Dear Swiss Cheese head, if part of the bible is not literal, then the ENTIRE bible is not literal and therefore a fairy tail.

We are not reacting to YOUR biblical god nor the way you consider faith. We only reject the bible and its god due to a lack of proof and the knowledge of history.

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for input, all. I don't know if I will be writing a book on my experiences. There were many people in the christian circles I mixed in who, above and beyond their beliefs, were really not bad people and infact some who were really good people and who have a genuinely caring nature. I suspect that is why christianity is the religion they chose to follow in that many of the teachings of Jesus Christ are ones which exhort humanity to practice compassion, empathy and so on.

I don't feel a need to despise christians. Although there are many who are truly frightening individuals too. Hateful, vindictive and twisted, infact. I don't even want to give them my energy in terms of hating them; I just want to stay well-clear of such people.

I tell you what, though, I really feel sorry for thinking Americans who reject christianity. America, from what I can tell, seems to have an enormous population of fundamentalists christians. It must be hideous to live within that milieu if you are not of 'the elect' and even harder to bear if you have been and then walked away.

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"I tell you what, though, I really feel sorry for thinking Americans who reject christianity. America, from what I can tell, seems to have an enormous population of fundamentalists christians. It must be hideous to live within that milieu if you are not of 'the elect' and even harder to bear if you have been and then walked away."

We feel sorry for you because you are not smart enough to push the "other" button and create a screen name, and that you are unable to understand that we did not just walk away.

We escaped, and some of us were mature enough at very early ages to look at the mythology of Christianity and question the irrationality of it, which is something you will never be able to do, because you are already at the point where you put your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you", every time you come to this ex-Christian site and read anything that is contrary to your brainwashing.

You want to witness to us and try to get us to join your cult, and we are looking at you and thinking," A mind is a terrible thing to waste" Maybe if you keep reading here, one day we will catch you on a day when you have your brain turned on, and will see that if there really is an omnipotent, and omniscient God, it has some "splainen to do"
Dan (70 year old rationalist)

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Hey Dano,

I got the same initial first impression from that anony poster. In context with the rest of her or his post, I think what he or she meant to say was something like this: I tell you what, though, I really feel sorry for (how) thinking Americans who reject christianity (must be treated).

Of course, I could be wrong...

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

webmaster,
I think "The force" gave us the Internet, so everyone can speak out whenever the Zealots start trying to enslave us again like they did during the dark ages. It troubles me tremendously though to see the gathering storm of the Islamic brainwashed versus the Christian brainwashed, and the prospects of a self fulfilling prophesy.

The truth may protect us from becoming "combatants," but it may not protect us from the fallout.
Dan

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Carla (who was anonymous) wrote:

Thanks Webmaster,

Your interpretation is exactly what I meant.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Swiss Christian wrote:

""....there are many things that have no use for us, and therefore no need for God to certify their accuracy."

Why then are those things even part of the "word of god"??"

As an example, let's look at the beginning of Luke's Gospel:

"Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning,I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Luke isn't saying "God appeared to me in burning flame, and the told to write exactly the things you are going to read"; he is doing the job of an historian. (and therefore, if you totally recject the inspiration of the Bible, you should read his gospel as you would now read an historian writing about WWII, not as a fairy tale). The Bible isn't just a collection of orders, principle and laws; it talks about real events, and events as well as History have a context that shouldn't be removed.

Let I talk about God's guidance and Inspiration. I do think God the almighty can force any of us do do exactly what he want at any time, but I think he use this possibility as little as possible, by respect for the freedom have gave us.
Therefore, while people were writing the Bible, I think he guided them so that it would not contain mistakes of capital importance, but about pointless things, I think He just let the authors write what them found the most right.

Let I be a little more personnal; after about two years in faith I made the clear decision that, God being Truth, I would never, even "for God's sake" force myself into believing something obviously false.
This lead me to much reflexion and to a "balanced" perception of the Bible, but never to leave faith, and in fact I think it rather grew stronger that way.
(Saying "every single word of the Bible is exact" would be dishonnest to me, but saying " It's only bullshit or human work" would be dishonnest as well, as it changed people live the world around for ages.

I'm not adressing those who now just hate christianity, neither those who never actually believed in Jesus-Christ. But for those who really came to know Him and drifted away because of doubts, oppresive church system and teaching, hypocrisy and so on, I would like to tell you that God is who he always was, but maybe he was just wrongly depicted to you.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 GoneNsane wrote:

"I'm not adressing those who now just hate christianity, neither those who never actually believed in Jesus-Christ. But for those who really came to know Him and drifted away because of doubts, oppresive church system and teaching, hypocrisy and so on, I would like to tell you that God is who he always was, but maybe he was just wrongly depicted to you."

Yeah, wrongly depicted...you mean your God actually doesn't order babies killed, women raped, make people miserable so he can display his power, need people to tell him how great he is, demand a pagan blood sacrifice as atonement for sins he himself commits...? Right. Jesus was nicer, but if you read carefully he encouraged worship of God, not himself, and never said he was to be exalted over anyone else. Since Christians worship Jesus, I believe what you guys do is called "idol worship," to use your own terminology.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Swiss Fundy "semi-literalist" said:


"Saying 'every single word of the Bible is exact' would be dishonnest to me, but saying 'It's only bullshit or human work' would be dishonnest as well, as it changed people live the world around for ages."

Um, so who decides what's "exact", and what's "bullshit"? ....let me guess...you? LOL! Duh!

Swiss Miss, obviously, you---like most if not all other funamentalists---choose to read the bible "buffet" style. Y'know what happens when people abuse buffets, don't you?...they become lazy immovable gluttonous pigs....:: suuu-eeey!::

Please...take your beak out of the Holey Babble for a minute, and crack open a dicionario. Study the meanings of the words "subjective", and "objective". Then maybe you'll see that ALL religious belief is S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E.....and therefore, it can NEVER be an "objective" universal belief for all of man-kind.

Buh-bye.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Um...why? wrote:

I just think this is all very funny. I imagine the devil, should he exist, is laughing his head off. Lets see where we are here.

The so called ex-Christians don't believe a word of the bible because someone can't remember how many people someone counted 50 years before writing it down.

The "fundies" believe every written word, which really doesn't make sense as they do contridict each other often.

The Muslims don't believe the Christians because they don't think Jesus was much of anything other than a teacher, and to be honest, it is because of the Crusades I'm sure.

The rest of the world has too many gods or no gods and doesn't have time to even consider Christianity.

And the non "fundy" Christians are typically too laid back to argue, cause it just don't matter enough to them how many people or how far it was, or what color shoes the person wore.

Either way, whatever you believe, one day, each of us will find out who was wrong and who was right. I sure would rather go through my life believing is something or someone bigger then little insignificant me, who teaches us to do things that make sense, and gives us love and grace and compassion, and heaven forbid it but hope, than run around screaming at the top of my lungs how everyone is wrong and this is all bubkiss.

I mean really, if I'm wrong, oh well, no harm done. I had a good and peaceful life trying to be a good person. But if you're wrong....well then....I don't want to think too long on that.

Take care all, and try to be a bit tolerant of us ignorant Christians. You can't help our lack of enlightenment.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Carla (who was anonymous),
Hi Carla! Nice name. That's the nice thing about arguing stuff on the net. We can be anyone we want to be. Isn't it nice to live in a country that still has a modicum of free speech. Think how horrible it must be to live in China, for instance where they tell you what you can read, and what you can say, or even worse, Iran where they have a theocracy, the same thing that the Catholic Church had over Europe for so long.

Just think how horrible it must be for those women in those Arab countries, who are regarded as property, and where those old religious fools tell them what they can wear and what they can do and say. Have you seen those Muslim women with those masks that they have to wear?, and if a bunch of guys decide to rape a woman, they bury the woman up to her neck, and stone her to death, and give the guys a slap on the wrist.

Most of the great men who founded this country and wrote the constitution were Deist's. They were well aware of the horrible things that people who claim to know what God wants can do to the masses, and they wanted to make sure it didn't happen here. They wanted to make sure everybody had the right to believe anything they wanted as long as it didn't interfere with the health and welfare of their neighbors.

Viva La enlightenment!
Dan

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

The "objective" diplomatic X-ian said: "Let's see where we are".

(*this is under the assumption that he read the testimonials here, and as well, fully understands the mission statement of Ex-christian.net)

Okay---"let's see where we are".

Firstly, what's this "WE" crap?...ya got a turd in your pocket? lol! But seriously---this is where YOU are. Your counter points, even though they are thinnly veiled, still reek of subjectivity with a lil' strawman thrown in for good measure. Nice. Y'see, the conflict/problem for most rationalists isn't about which mythological character "remembers" what, or what language the shrubs speak, or how many nails were in Jr.'s hands---the real contradictions are in the "end" that is trying to be sought....i.e...."love" through conditions; "freewill" through coersion; "belief" through the surrender of the "self". The notions are absurd and abhorent. BTW, the "Muslims" and the Christians believe in the same "deity".... they just each have their OWN "spin" on it, and let's not forget cultural relativity.

....next, the "objective" diplomatic X-ian says:

"I mean really, if I'm wrong, oh well, no harm done. I had a good and peaceful life trying to be a good person."

LOL! Are you serious? Pascal's Wager?--the oldest X-ian sound-bite on the net? Okay, firstly, you can have a "good and peaceful life" without being "frightened" into doing so.(and please, don't tell me about "divine" morals) Secondly, applying Pascal's Wager essentially just says that you don't have the evidence to back up your belief. And BTW, you don't.

Ciao.


* This would be a big fat "NO".

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

BTW, a question for any believer, of any faith:

Why is it so imperative to believe in a "being" that is greater than one's self? Why is "purpose" and "meaning" so contingent upon such a notion? Really, I want to know......because by that same reasoning, we could easily say that the existance of "God" has zero meaning, because presumably, there's nothing greater than him, right? Do'h!

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Carla wrote:

Dano, American christian religious fundos, in my opinion, are every bit as frightening as Islamic Relgious fundos. Incase you haven't noticed, you yankee patriotic twit, most of the western world has now been coerced off to fight a largely unknowable enemy thanks to good ol' God bless America and have become just as guilty of murdering inncocent women and children, the employment of torture, and the destruction of liberty including democracy whenever it doesn't suit the American 'christian morality' aka capitalist global domination. Right now, your presidential Abrahamic father is probably sifting through these posts on the lookout for anything 'of threat' to 'peace'...you know..the peace by which we now understand in the context of "when I say war, I really mean peace".

By American THINKERS, I did not mean American patriotic SHEEP.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Blissful Awareness wrote:

David M.: "Take care all, and try to be a bit tolerant of us ignorant Christians. You can't help our lack of enlightenment."

Yes, lets see this leading edge intelligence display itself as an objective view.

David M.: "Either way, whatever you believe, one day, each of us will find out who was wrong and who was right."

How enlightened, you suggest that there is truth beyond this reality, which suggests that we will be conscious entities capable of referring back to this previous life. So, enlightened one, how do you know there won't just be peaceful bliss with 'no' knowledge at all, no memories, no recall, just plain calmness. I am sure, you've thought through your statement before making your point, so, lets hear it.

David M.: "I sure would rather go through my life believing is something or someone bigger then little insignificant me,"

The tell tale sign of a christian. Typically, one who has been programmed to believe they are insignificant fodder of organic matter, born in sin, and unworthy of anything truly great in their life. Quite possibly, anything that can even come close to one who assumes something great happened to them, causes them to give the credit to a deity, because it just couldn't have been them that produced great moments in their life.

David M.: "who teaches us to do things that make sense,"

Religion is senseless, illogical, and has no foundation. However, people have used it to murder for the past few thousand years, that, doesn't make any moral sense at all.

David M.: "and gives us love and grace and compassion, and heaven forbid it but hope, than run around screaming at the top of my lungs how everyone is wrong and this is all bubkiss."

If you have to seek out an imaginary friend, one of over 4,938 noted gods throughout history, to find grace and compassion, you seem to be lost in life. Try stopping a moment and intrinsically searching for those attributes in your own life. You suggest that your life, and those who don't seek some greater power, have a life of bubkiss. Quit screaming, with between the line rhetoric, that everyone is taking your ball away. Keep your ball, however, keep it to yourself. Everyone has a right to a personal opinion, but, that doesn't make something fact. So, if people want predictable events in their life, to suggest fact, then religion has nothing to offer, as anything illogically premised, provides unpredictability.

David M.: "I mean really, if I'm wrong, oh well, no harm done."

Actually, you led a life based on repression and unnatural acts based on your thought patterns. If you don't harm anyone else, the best you could say, "no harm done" to others. And, if you wanted nothing out of life, greater than your dowry of sinful nature, then you got just what you wanted, and perhaps you talked yourself into believing that it wasn't harmful, because you didn't deserve anything greater. I see it as tragic, however, your life quality, is based on how good you feel.

David M.: "I had a good and peaceful life trying to be a good person."

I wouldn't consider having to lead an unnatural life with unnatural thoughts as peaceful, but, if it floats your boat, then keep it. Just keep it close to you, and away from the public arena, thanks.

David M.: "But if you're wrong....well then....I don't want to think too long on that."

It doesn't appear that you have spent much time thinking, so no harm done. If the Muslims are right, then you are going to suffer much worse than your idea of hell, good luck, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I will not die with demons in my mind, to haunt me in the afterlife, as, I don't believe in demons. Enjoy your happiness, while looking over your shoulder, for the little guy with the pitch-fork and little red suit.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Larva-Carla wrote:

Carla: "...most of the western world has now been coerced off to fight a largely unknowable enemy thanks to good ol' God bless America and have become just as guilty of murdering inncocent women and children, the employment of torture, and the destruction of liberty including democracy whenever it doesn't suit the American 'christian morality' aka capitalist global domination."

Well, you can also thank Blair, the fucking Brit Twit, for putting his UK cents in on this one, as the greatest sponsor of global democratization and free trade. Oh, and throw the fucking U.N. in as well, and NATO if you feel you need dumbass. Oh, and by the way, its the presence around the world, that creates hostility. Some like to suggest that expanding global woes are limited to just one variable, like natural resources, etc. Its not only natural resources, and nationalistic interests that are protected, but there are people who generally want to torture, murder, and control large masses of people through coercion, like Sadam. But, as long as some dumb ass sitting in the comfort of their home isn't bothered by the screams they hear thousands of miles away, they assume everything is just as it should be. When nations get invovled, they're told its none of their business, when they pull away, they are told they don't give enough to the poor nations.

"Even though these targets and agendas have been set, year after year almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.4%, some $100 billion short."
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Protection of humanity, plus, monetary humanitarian foreign aid, and sending ones' citizens overseas to protect those who can't protect themselves. Yeah, dumb ass, that is a terrible thing, perhaps the U.S. should sit the fuck back and let people be butchered and starve.

The U.S. should be smart, and just back out. And, when the citizens in countries like Iraq, get butchered by terrorists, we should wait for the first idiot to open their mouth. Then, of course, ask the stupid son of a bitch, if they are willing to pick up a fucking rifle and march into another country to protect those citizens. If a country makes a comment, then the country should be asked to provide the first wave of their citizens for combat.

Regarding your most ignorant statement of boiling up terrorism.


"Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage."

"Some of the cartoons depict the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist"

"Seven publications in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all carried some of the drawings.

Their publication in Denmark led Arab nations to protest. Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet."

"Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen welcomed the paper's apology, but defended the freedom of the press."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

How assinine is it to provoke Muslims to riot, and claim democracy and freedom of speech. Perhaps, all media outlets should be censured, so that special interest groups don't get bent out of shape. Okay, now, who gets to be the editor in chief. Denmark? Germany? Britain? How about an eastern block country, they don't have terrorists, oh, wait, yes they do. They stormed a school full of children a while back, and took them hostage , a couple of times.

Carla: "Right now, your presidential Abrahamic father is probably sifting through these posts on the lookout for anything 'of threat' to 'peace'...you know..the peace by which we now understand in the context of "when I say war, I really mean peace"."

It appears you approve of free speech. Therefore, you are one of the problems in society, you are the one who would incite violence by supporting media outlets to post religious satire, knowing it would cause terrorist activity to increase. Oh, while American soldiers are sitting in hostile territory and will be the immediate target for aggression.

If a country protects is right to use international trade zones, and some twit doesn't like it, and they commit acts of aggression, then, retalliation is obviously necessary.

Carla: "By American THINKERS, I did not mean American patriotic SHEEP."

Okay, moron, without the patriotic sheep, the thinkers don't have the protection to think. One must be free to think, and that requires protection, to include the protection one needs because of morons who stir up global riots using media outlets, morons who push the U.K. model for free trade, and if it wasn't them, the communists who want to push their economic policy around the world. You're no better than a fundy who refuses to read, you just aren't aware of the level of ignorance you've shown in this one post.

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Dave M said: "I mean really, if I'm wrong, oh well, no harm done.[...]But if you're wrong....well then....I don't want to think too long on that."

WM's paraphrase of Dave M: "My life isn't worth anything anyway, so what's the difference if I live it out in a complete delusion? But if you guys turn out to be mistaken, you're gonna suffer eternally in my God's horrific torture chamber of retribution!!!! BTW, God loves you."

posted: February 03, 2006 EST  

 Josh wrote:

Wow...
There are a lot of trains of thought running through these posts. To the point that I'm not exactly sure what to say, but I'm going to articulate the best that I can. I am not a biblical scholar in the academic sense, but I am a Christian.

First off, I want to apologize for the way that Christians have acted historically. They have scammed for money, indulged in affairs of all kinds, killed in the name of religious cleansing, the list could go on and on and on for anyone who's counting. Honestly, also, I question their motives. Why do they act that way? I also quesion whether or not they truly follow Christ. But Christians are human, and as humans we are amazingly self-centered - a problem that only further exacerbates the so-called "big" problems of life like poverty and war and so many others. The only cure for that, it would seem, is to take your mind off of yourself for awhile, and take action on someone else's behalf - but that is an entirely different thread of thought, and not a response to the posed questions.

As for the three ideas presented above:

I think the question that needs to be asked is, "What is the purpose of the Bible?" Is it a collection of authors' scientific descriptions of historical events? Or is it a collection of authors' descriptions of the nature of God? Both? Or is it something else entirely? I'm not trying to limit it to a false dichotomy (or trichotomy for those of you counting).

I believe that while it does record history, the main purpose of the Bible is to reveal the heart of God. Throughout the Bible God's paradoxical nature is described in human terms. His abounding love for his creation, manifested (in one way) through His constant redemption and purification of Israel in the Old Testament, through means considered barbaric by most any standards in 21st century America; and ultimately His restorative plan for all people in the death and resurrection of Christ. The latter not only provides a means of re-establishing a relationship with God, but ultimately triumphs over evil, as well, so that we can be confident that regardless of life's circumstances we can persevere.

True, the gospels have things a little differently here and there. I don't want to simply reason them away with ideas like "Those passages cannot be taken out of context," or "Those details aren't important because they don't directly support the main thrust of the story," but historical context, biblical context, and factors like intended audience and cultural customs must be acknowledged.

I offer some possibilities:

Perhaps in the account of the demon possesed men Luke and Mark, unlike Matthew, only mention one man being exorcised at Gerasenes because he is the one who later talks with Jesus and begs to accompany Him, and to whom Jesus replies that he should go home and tell what has happened. Maybe they consider the dialogue more important than a play-by-play of the exorcism. (Note that Matthew does not record the dialogue at all.)

As for how many angels were at the tomb, there seems to me to be separate instances of angels appearing. An angel appears and rolls away the stone, and angels appear both outside and inside the tomb, both before and after the women are told to go and tell the disciples. I would assume that at this point the authors are relying on the memory of at least 3 different women to tell the story, and the thrust of each story seems to