Interesting insight on "who done it"

I agree with everything you say, Jayelles. Her post, to me, implies someone has questioned either John Ramsey, or more likely her, before about the quote. I don't think she rang Ramsey up the past few days and asked him about it. But Bowen must have heard or read it somewhere (and for some reason there's something familiar about it to me).

It didn't just come out of the blue.

But I'd have to bet with you, jameson doesn't know.

 

She could not know. She may know John denies it was said a long time ago, but all he can deny is hearing it. And someone else may have heard it. I'm just thinking (out loud) Bowen got that quote from someone in law enforcement ? since that's the business he's in. Maybe it was in something he read.

You could always email Bowen. I've been thinking about it, but that's as far as I've got with that idea. Susan Bennett has already emailed him; watch her throw a hissy fit if he doesn't respond.

 

QUOTE Patsy believed in a God who would punish murderers, not reward them. ENDQUOTE

In evangelical Christianity, the sin that inevitably leads to hell is dying as an unbeliever. All other sins can be forgiven by repentence.

You are confusing with Catholicism (and possibly some closely related Protestant denominations) which has the mortal and venial sin system.

Patsy would have believed she could have been forgiven.

 

Thank you! I have had a problem with the location of the injury as well. And my daughter's head has lacerated hitting a smooth, very soft vinyl floor. (She tilted the chair back on two legs and fell backward at age 5).

I think one of the celebrity medical examiners found the focus of the injury to be small in size, consistent with the flashlight (which was cleaned too well to have not been involved somehow in the crime).

 

Catholics believe that God can forgive all our sins, as long as we have true repentence. The "mortal" sin is a grave sin against God and possibly our fellow men. The "venial" sin is less grave, still a sin, but can be something that the person did not know was a sin at the time. Here is a bit of text that might be helpful. Patsy was not a Catholic, though the Episcopalian Church is related. Episcopalians do not use reconciliation for forgiveness of sins as we Catholics do.

All sins can be forgiven

A person who repents of their sin, intends to live a new life of grace, and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation will be forgiven of all their sins (mortal sins in particular must be confessed in the Sacrament). Our sins can be forgiven, because Jesus Christ paid for the price of human sin by dying on the cross for the redemption of humanity. Jesus Christ, true man and true God, was the perfect sacrifice for human sin and as a result saved those who are baptized, repent and believe in him.

Because a baptized Christian can still sin, Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus gave the power to forgive sins in his name to the Church. He told his apostles, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22–23). This means that the apostles and their successors, the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church, can forgive sins in Jesus’ name.

It is vitally important that Catholics confess sins on a regular basis, especially if we are in the state of mortal sin. A person who dies in mortal sin cannot enter the kingdom of heaven and is doomed to eternal suffering in hell. Even when we have not committed mortal sin, we are still obliged to confess our sins at least once a year. Christ, in perfect love, laid down his life so that we may be forgiven of our sins. The sacrifice of the cross should not be neglected or taken for granted. Jesus died for the life of the world and is thus the light of the world. "He that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John 8:12) from
http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

 

I was thinking Catholicism pre-Vatican II, but the passage you cited still leaves doubt as to the fate of an individual who dies with unconfessed mortal sin. In evangelical Christianity, salvation is by faith alone.

Patsy may have attended an Episcopalian church, but her reported beliefs and practices were more consistent with evangelical Christianity.

 

But if an evangelical Christian murders someone, intentionally and knowingly, he or she MUST also ask God to forgive that sin, correct? It's not as if God forgives our sins even if we don't repent. In fact, if you don't repent of your sins, you are out of standing with God.

We Catholics do confess to a priest, because we believe that is what Jesus told us to do, but other denominations do not use a "middle-man" and they speak directly to God.

I don't know what Patsy's beliefs were. I think she and John went to the church they did purely for show, and the rest of their "Christian" behavior was also for show.

I do hope Patsy had repented of her sin to God before she died. I wouldn't wish hell on anyone, even Patsy.

 

Yes, a Christian is required to repent of sin...but salvation is absolutely by faith alone. Our sins are covered by Christ's blood.

I do not know what happens to a person who has obvious guilt and confesses/repents privately but not publically. It is possible such a person (assuming a believer) may escape the flames of hell by a thread but will be held accountable (lesser reward) in the hereafter.

 

And does the "forgiveness clause" cover allowing others to suffer under your lies and duplicity? Doesn't the Bible say that you must comply with the law of the land? And when do you get to sidestep those on your way to Heaven under the mercy of God? When you're rich and privileged and those you willingly cause to suffer are not?

Right. Now you know why I don't do religion.

 

No, not in my faith. If you are continuing to lie, you are continuing to sin, and that is not repentance. Repentance means you STOP the sin and try to repair what damage has been done. You truly do something different, not just confess to God and go on lying. Even if your lies do not involve an actual crime, you are still up before God to stop what you're doing and turn toward God in sorrow and a determination to "go and sin no more." (Of course, I don't believe that is truly possible on this earth but we are called to try as Christians.

In no faith I know of would Patsy get a pass if she continued to lie about JonBenet's death right up to her own death. Even if she thought she was doing the right thing by protecting someone else in her family, it is not up to her to judge whether that person is innocent or guilty. By protecting someone, even your own child, from the consequences of his or her actions, you yourself are breaking the law.

"I did what I thought was best at the time" is not a hall pass from serious sin.

 

Think of the suffering of the Whites, because of the events of the murder of JonBenet.

Think of all those who have lived with suspicion of being a child molesting killer: the Pughs; the McReynolds; a deceased man and his family, the Helgoths; Oliva; Gigax; Wolf; etc., etc.

Now think of those who professionally suffered, losing careers, promotions, reputations.

Then think of all the families of these people who also lost so much, in stress, in worries, in finances, their lives forever altered by the Ramseys' lies, manipulations, deceit, and malicious actions to divert the truth.

That's the sin I'm talking about, heymom. When did that stop? When have the Ramseys come out and admitted the truth, which would have put a stop to all of the above?

Never. That's when.

So how does Patsy get a free pass on her sins, from the Christian perspective? She never repented. That would have required admitting to LE what happened and accepting the judgment of our law, whatever that might have been. That would have released all those who ARE innocent from their sacrifices for the pleasure of the Ramseys. Patsy died never having accepted HER sins. She never had any compassion for those she deliberately hurt to save herself and/or those she loved. She did not know a THING about Jesus, no matter how pious she tried to appear.

Now me, I don't believe it's that simple. I also don't believe in "Heaven and Hell" in the mythological sense. But I do believe that in the big picture, we all pay--together. So what the Ramseys did has hurt the human race in indefinable ways. The negative energy they created that night still flows. Think John Mark Karr. That's what Patsy could have stopped, which would have been the decent and compassionate thing, the right thing to do. The Chrisitian thing, as well. She chose not to stop the lies. So we all pay. But no one more than her own family. Her choices were very stupid and born of ego and pride. She never learned that lesson in this life.

Somehow, the negative energy the Ramseys unleashed will come back around to them. It always does. That is a Law of Physics: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That applies on every plane, physical and spiritual, IMO. Life is a circle, after all. As sad as this tragedy has played out for the Ramseys, they've been the authors of it from the beginning. I don't think we've seen the third act yet.

 

After reading Jayelles Atlanta Altercation thread, it makes perfect sense for White to have said what Bowen quoted him as saying.

 

I did not confuse Catholicism with anything. I was not even addressing the issue of forgiveness, sin or repentence. I was responding to Paradox's statement wherein he said:

"The use of the object in conflict resolution finally expanded into the theme of infantile parental recognition and adult fear of death. Both of those conflicts were resolved by making JonBenet into an angel and sending her to heaven where she was with a God. Thus Patsy assured herself of safe passage to the afterlife and recognition by the ultimate parental figure."

Paradox was essentially saying that Patsy killed JonBenet with premeditation in order to make her an angel. In addition, this premeditated murder would ASSURE Patsy of "safe passage to the afterlife" and recognition by God, "the ultimate parental figure."

Premeditated murder is NOT an assurance of "safe passage to the afterlife" in ANY religion and is certainly not a way to recognition by God as a benevolent parental figure.

Patsy "claimed" to be a Christian. In Christian theology, premeditated murder is definitely not seen as something you do in order to gain safe passage to Heaven or insinuate yourself into the good graces of God. In fact, the opposite is true.

In my post, I was asking Paradox to explain how he thought Patsy, who claimed Christian beliefs, could believe that the premeditated murder of her own daughter would assure Patsy an honored place in Heaven. I wanted to hear his thoughts on the subject because the idea seemed incongruous to Patsy's beliefs.

Paradox explained to me privately that in his opinion, a regressed, infantile Patsy would not necessarily understand or hold those beliefs while the adult Patsy might profess Christian theology.

It has nothing to do with Patsy asking forgiveness for JonBenet's murder, or if Patsy could receive such forgiveness after possible repentence. That was not the question. The discussion was whether Patsy caused JonBenet's death accidentally, or if it was premeditated murder performed as a conduit to Heaven. If it was the latter, then an explanation of the psychological mechanisms behind it was needed.

 

Cherokee, I wasn't talking to you, but to twinkiesmom, and we just had a side discussion about redemption, reconciliation, repentance, etc. I realize that you and Paradox were talking about premeditated murder v. a split personality or a regressed person.

Our little side discussion was more about wondering whether Patsy did repent before she died, and if so, would that bring about her salvation or not. At least, I think that is what we were discussing!

I believe that even if Patsy did repent of whatever role she played in JonBenet's death, she couldn't have repented of the lies and damage she did to other people while maintaining her family's image as innocent. But in my faith, God can forgive us everything, if we truly repent. So I just don't know.

 

Aye, there's the rub!

 

I know you weren't talking to me. I was specifically responding to Twinkiesmom's post where she said was I was confusing Catholicism with evangelical Christianity.

I wanted to make it clear that my earlier post was about a different issue than Twinkiesmom thought. In plain English, Paradox was saying that Patsy (with premeditation) killed JonBenet IN ORDER TO ASSURE HERSELF OF A PLACE IN HEAVEN. I wanted further explanation from Paradox for his statement. It had nothing to do with Patsy asking forgiveness AFTER murdering JonBenet, or whether she would get that forgiveness according to a certain theology. I think Twinkiemom misunderstood my question, and I was merely trying to clarify my original thought. My post was about psychological intent before murder and the causes of that intent, not the theological aftermath.

Edited to add: I probably confused you by replying to an "old" post. Until today, I haven't had time to post, only read as a moderator to make sure everyone is playing nice. So I was just going back a little and catching up on my posting.

 

-Premeditated murder is NOT an assurance of "safe passage to the afterlife" in ANY religion and is certainly not a way to recognition by God as a benevolent parental figure.-

I disagree, Cherokee.

People have been killed in religious ceremonies in an attempt to communicate with Gods. This has happened around the world and deep into history. Whole courts of Pharoes were burried alive with the full expectation that they would join the dead King in the afterlife. And today suicide bombers commit self murder and murder of others fully expecting to go to heaven.

In fact, killing animals and killing people (murder) has been viewed as one of THE BEST ways of dealing with the Gods and the afterlife.

The psychological explaination of this is belief is irrational and the further one goes along the line of belief the more one nears psychosis. What starts out as an effort to understand and communicate with a higher authority becomes a confusion between oneself and that higher authority with the consequence of one acting as if one was that higher authority.

 

Sorry. When I made that statement, I didn't make myself clear as I was posting in too much of a hurry and didn't go into detail. I can understand your disagreement with such a sweeping generalization.

However, I wasn't thinking about any past religion or the perversity/misinterpretation of any modern religion to justify terrorism. I used the present tense "is NOT" because I was talking about the major tenets of various religions - Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc. - as practiced now and in 1996. None of them condone one-on-one premeditated murder (of an innocent of their own religion), which is what I was referring to in relation to Patsy.

I agree that human sacrifice in order to please gods, and the wholesale slaughter of innocent people of different religions, has been practiced and justified throughout history.

What I was meant by my statement was that no present religion states that the premeditated murder (and by that, I mean individual, face-to-face murder) of another person (and I was specificially thinking of your own child) is something to be done, like a sacrament, in order to earn a place in heaven.

Nowhere in any of the sacred texts does it say - "Thou shalt murder your child or your neighbor's child."

Having said that, I now understand more of what you were saying originally about Patsy and psychosis vs. rational thought, and I totally agree with your statement (in regards human sacrifice and religious terrorism) that:

"The psychological explaination of this is belief is irrational and the further one goes along the line of belief the more one nears psychosis."

 

don't think

I don't think Patsy could have been sick enough to decide she needed to send JBR on to heaven without others in her family or her friends noticing such severe mental illness. There is mention in the old Testament of someone being called on to sacrifice their own child - Isaac. Although the sacrifice did not occur - it was a test of faith.

 

But the Qur'an does say that its followers should kill Jews and non-Muslims, if they refuse to convert to Islam.