Man Who Took His Family To a Remote Alaska Island To Live Biblically Sentenced to 14 Years For Sexual Assault, Incest, Coercion

Well, the Bible doesn't really sanction Christmas, either, so leaning on the Bible is always a little squirrelly in terms of guidance to the detailed execution of your daily life. What a nutcase.

No mention of the Dinosaurs either - I guess they didn't exist. Poor Alaska...

There's a real winner for you. For those of you keeping score at home, the Bible in no way sanctions:

a.) living in Alaska

LOL!

It is indeed unfortunate that someone would try and interpret the bible that way. I get the feeling the whole bible thing was an excuse to convince his family that commiting these atrocities was ok, and that he wasn't truly religious.

Hale had been indicted on 30 counts of rape, incest, coercion, kidnapping and assault for crimes against one of his daughters, committed between 1998 and 2005.

wow...

Why wasn't he "truly religious"?

Seems to me he was being religious in every sense of the word.

Because he was using religion for his own designs. Using it to try and justify his actions.

There's a real winner for you. For those of you keeping score at home, the Bible in no way sanctions:

a.) living in Alaska

b.) sexually assaulting your children

c.) stealing a bulldozer and using it without authorization on national park land. (that whole give unto Caesar bit)

Absolutely hilarious!

Because he was using religion for his own designs. Using it to try and justify his actions.

And how did you determine this?

Because he was using religion for his own designs. Using it to try and justify his actions.

That's exactly what everyone does with religion. In fact, that's what everyone does in every single act they commit every day.

Read Mark Twain What is Man?

Because he was using religion for his own designs. Using it to try and justify his actions.

I'd say that's pretty much the definition of religion.

No, that's only your biased definition of religion. True religion is man's attempt to connect with the divine.

That's a pretty broad statement. What if this man felt he was connecting to the divine? Does that make it somehow valid behavior?

No, that's only your biased definition of religion. True religion is man's attempt to connect with the divine.

The one common thread, my friend, that ties all religions together throughout history is their use to justify otherwise pitiful acts. The names of the gods may change; the ceremonies may come in and out of practice. But all religion is at its core is a means of justifying the otherwise unjust.

Adam, that's probably one of the most ridiculous assertions I've heard in a long time. Essentially, you are saying that because religion has always been abused and misused by some, religion itself is suspect. Do you not see the error of what you say? Any institution can and has been abused. The American political system has been abused, does that mean that Constitution is suspect just because some have abused it? This argument makes absolutely no sense.

Bush has abused the Constitution therefore the Constitution is unjust. See the problem? Just because people can not live up to the high standards that Jesus set, does not invalidate the standards.

What if this man felt he was connecting to the divine? Does that make it somehow valid behavior?

I am saying that he WASN'T trying to connect to the divine. "By his fruits we know a man." A fig tree does not bear apples, an apple tree does not bear oranges. A true follower of Jesus would never be doing what this man has done. I think he has payed too much attention to the Old Testament and not enough to the New. This does not mean that the Old Testament is invalidated, only that you can't understand the Old outside of the New. I know this will anger a lot of Jewish folk, but that's what Jesus himself said. "I did not come into the world to abolish the law but to fulfill it."

One thing is clear, from the point-of-view of practical theology the "Old Testament" or TaNaKh does not stand on its own. Christians read it through the lens of the New Testament, the Patristic fathers, and their own particular Church doctrine. Jews read it through the lens of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the legacy of Rabbinic thought (halakhah, aggadah, responsa, etc.) stretching from the Masoretes to the present day.

Biblical "fundamentalism," the idea that Scripture can be understood on its own, is at best a comfortable illusion, and at worst an intellectual fallacy, whatever tradition you come from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_City"> Drop City; T.C. Boyle

Very cool, but, um.... what does it have to do with this thread??

Killfile, I didn't see your comment until today, but I'd like to respond:

To be fair Phaedrus, what you've got there is an example of the True Scottsman fallacy. Now I happen to agree with you, this guy represents the exception rather than the rule. The question is, can a few bad apples really spoil the bunch.

Adam argues that they can. I don't know that we can say if he's right or wrong in any definitive sense, save to argue that - to the religious in any case - such a conclusion is unacceptable.

I wasn't saying all people who are religious are bad. In fact I'd say it's quite the opposite. Most people who go to church have good intentions and are honest people. It is the evil, greedy, manipulative church rulers that are responsible for the evils religion brings to the world. These people exploit the common decency in others by telling them they are fulfilling that desire to do good things.

Religion is fine on an individual level. But, like virtually anything else, when celebrated unilaterally by the masses, it becomes a tool of oppression.