Interesting insight on "who done it"

Once again, that's not what I was referring to in my post.

I was specifically addressing the idea of the follower of a modern religion being instructed by that religion to commit premeditated murder as a sacrament in order to gain heaven. I am aware of that passage in the Quran, but I was not talking about the refusal to convert, or the spreading of religion by genocide.

I was trying to communicate that premeditated murder is not something an individual does to ASSURE themselves of a place in heaven like a check-mark on a "to do" list.

-----

Patsy: "Oh, right."

Baptism check
Communion check
Murder check

-----

In reality, what started this whole conversation was that I misunderstood what Paradox was trying to say in HIS original post. I was thinking along the lines of rational intent whereas he was referring to deep psychosis. We're on the same page now.

 

Chero, you see how subjective religious views are. What is today anorexia was in the past FASTING to SAINTHOOD. It's the same dilemma as war: killing for the greater good is still killing. Yet who questions soldiers killing in a war?

Religion is ALWAYS about interpretation and application. Every single person has to chose everyday which of the religious doctrines they will follow, and how far. Think of the Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades. Joan of Arc was a teenager who led a holy war, and then was burnt at the stake by the very people who used her charisma and religious appeal to wage that war. The Islamic extremists are no different than those who killed for their religions, are they? Unless you believe your religion, and ONLY YOURS, is the true religion, what's the difference?

But that's how religions work, isn't it? They serve very human needs: replacing fear of death with promise of a heavenly afterlife, hence no death; they relieve the suffering of ordinary occurances, such as illness or the loss of a loved one, loss of an income, a home in a fire, etc., by giving comfort in stories and words of hope and recovery. They also bring a sense of community to people, and that bond creates a safer and more stable environment to survive. That's common among many species, who herd together for safety.

But most relevant to Patsy is the ability of individual members of any religion TO CHOSE what they believe, IMO. I think Patsy was very secure in her belief that she had done what she had to do and her "suffering" was earned, her debt paid by her faith, so to speak. I don't believe she ever thought for one minute that whatever happened that night, she was wrong in any of her actions. She convinced herself that it was all good: JonBenet will never suffer this or that; JonBenet served her purpose in this life; JonBenet is famous and bringing people to God.

I think the examples the swampsters are using now to justify their acceptance of Karr are the same ones Patsy used in her acts: I'm doing the "time" in my own special penitence, given to me by God.

Well, just some thoughts. I'm sure no one can possibly agree on this...for the very reason that Patsy was able to interpret her actions and life the way she did: it's all personal and individual. We see what we want to see, and so did Patsy.

 

good post KK

 

If it's any comfort, I agree with you on every point

 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about: Isaac talked to a BURNING BUSH, didn't he? And that was "God" telling him to "sacrifice" his own son to prove his love. But the poor child got a last minute reprieve from "God". I don't even want to think about the issues that poor kid lived with.

And sorry, I believe that many of these Biblical stories are about crazy people, or people who were ill or under the influence of something hallucinatory, explained as miracles and such. The need for storytelling in human history has always been great, passed down in oral tradition until writing was invented.

I have a relative who had back surgery and had morphine for pain while she was in the hospital. She saw God. Oh, yeah, she believed without one doubt she saw God. And I believe she did, too. And if you give me that same morphine, I might see him as well.

Well, Patsy was on some powerful drugs during her illness. She was under tremendous emotional stress, as well. How far did she fall from rich pageant queen, living the American dream, to dying cancer patient, cut up like a sacrificial lamb, puking her guts out and bald? Then JonBenet is murdered and it's back to the Beauty Queen tour.

Did she plan it that way? I don't see how she could have, as no one could have predicted the huge attention this case would garner, as it's the very first to spring FULL BLOWN on the Internet, with unprecedented leaks and media blitzing from both sides, public interest captured by the haunting videos of the lovely child dancing for us forever, frozen live and in color.

I don't know what Patsy was thinking. That if she sacrificed JonBenet, they'd both be saved? It's no more or less implausible than any other theory. Pick any theory and it's necessarily based in extreme human behavior few people recognize first hand--thank god. I do know in the South, many people get really serious about Bible mythology and take it very literally. Depending on what the preacher is preaching this Sunday, you might end up thinking everyone in the world is going to Hell but you as the CHOSEN ONES, or that God is love and mercy, or that God is vengence and wrath. Etc.

It's like a menu: take what you want or need today to fill your emptiness. What was Patsy feeling in the days before Christmas? We really do not know. The Whites might know, but they aren't telling. Others in the family or John's business might have known, but they aren't telling, either. Or maybe nobody knows but Patsy. And she definitely isn't going to tell.

 

It was Moses who saw the burning bush.

 

Oh, thanks. Then what was talking to Isaac? Was it Isaac?

 

No, that was Abraham. Isaac was his son. Abraham heard from God directly, no bushes necessary.

 

Oh, thanks. Obviously, Texan and I have been playing hooky from church for a very long time. :angeldev:

 

not moi

I didn't dis Moses. I was refering to Isaac as the child - badly phrased - sorry. :beats:

 

Ah. So you led me astray. I see. Very Biblical of you.... :snake:

 

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. - Texan.

She need not have been sick to think this way. In fact, inspired people often are held in high esteem in public life, while in private they commit depravity. All the while going unnoticed.

You give her family and friends too much credit. Afterall, some people did comment on her excenticities.

 

Kk

Trusssssst me :snake: I am not a biblical scholar.

 

Hey, don't bare your fangs at me. Been there, done THAT! Hated the fig leaves.

I take full responsibility for my flagging knowledge of Biblical references. I could have looked it up. But it's much more fun to give the newly defeated Miss Anal Retentive Contestant #4, heymom, the opportunity to practice her routine. She's very promising, and if someone doesn't unseat that crown hog Cherokee soon, she'll be polishing our yellow eyeballs and trying to whiten our tooth before long.

 

I resemble that remark! But seriously folks, I only do grammar, spelling, and Bible. All the rest I'll leave to Paradox and Cherokee.

 

Exactly.

 

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


But the do-it-yourself texts say exactly that.

 

:del: