God's Criminal Justice System...

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Man that pic is awesome!!!!!!:thumb:

I forget, isn't that one of the Tic superheroes?

No, he has (had?) his own comic. I've never read it, though. I've just seen pictures.

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan

Not to mention (I agree with Enyart on this) that such a system, if it has the effect on society that it seems it would, would make it far, far easier for people to both seek and accept Christ. Not mention saving a lot of people a great deal of grief.

I think such a system would cause untold grief. Because, as others have said, it will be run by fallen men. The Mayans practiced a very strict death penalty and thousands died, but the ruling class generally managed to escape justice. I understand that part of their system was also religious ritual to appease the gods; but wouldn't an Enyart system be the same.

During the Middle Ages millions were "converted" so as not to face death for not obeying the laws layed down by "christian" Rome. But what kind of "conversions are those? The threat of death does not make accepting Christ easier, it makes it more difficult. It also makes it impossible to have any idea who have really accepted Christ and who just mumble the words to avoid the punishment.

A system with that many penalties for death would surely kill thousands of innocent people. Imagine the jealous girlfriend who goes back to accuse the ex-boyfriend of rebellion. The neighbour wh gets his neighbour killed over some minor property violation. The channels for legalized vengeance are thrown wide open. The McCarthy era of snatching on people would look like kindergarten stuff. The world would become a giant witch-hunt.

I'm sure all that stuff deserves death. But that is where we must believe "vengeance is mine," says the Lord, "I will repay." and for us we must try to be at peace with all men in so far as it sepends on us. Even in the OT God says time and again that is he is slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness (HeSeD) and relenting of evil. Why are we more vengeant than God?!

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: God's Criminal Justice System...

Re: Re: Re: Re: God's Criminal Justice System...

Originally posted by Freak
I have always supported corporal punishment. Stop bearing false witness.

Including flogging?

Sexual activity with a woman [the man's wife] who is menstruating deserves the death penalty according to the less then superior covenant. Is this law symbolic to you too?

Yes.

Do you think it is inherently immoral?

"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them):

"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.
He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head."

Who under the Old Covenant, Turbo, escaped from doing a detesable thing? Everyone is guilty so everyone desrves death. But, oh, the mercy & grace of God.

Way to focus on the most vague item on the list, Freak. Besides, the man described did all of those things, not just one.

If you were king, what punishment (if any) would you have carried out on such a man guilty of all of those things? (Please be specific. "Redemptive justice" doesn't really tell us anything.)

Because the governments are unjust.

So these countries are unjust because they don't execute people? If they carried them out, would that be just?

I believe the Gospel is a much more powerful tool to deter crime, Romans 1:16. You & I differ on this. I believe the Gospel is more powerful where you believe the death penalty is.

If the Gospel is a much more powerful tool, does that mean that capital punishment is altogether powerless as a deterrent?

And where do prison sentences fit into the spectrum? Are they as powerful than the gospel? If not, should we do away with them altogether?

It cannot be executed speedily due to the sinfulness of man that make up our governments. Were you aware of this?

Yes, I completely agree. But if we were to correct that problem that would be a good thing, right?

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Chileice
I think such a system would cause untold grief. Because, as others have said, it will be run by fallen men. The Mayans practiced a very strict death penalty and thousands died, but the ruling class generally managed to escape justice. I understand that part of their system was also religious ritual to appease the gods; but wouldn't an Enyart system be the same.

I think you are confusing a system of law and justice based on christian, biblical principles with a fanatical tyrannical theocracy (the Mayan). The fact that the Mayan system was largely "religious ritual" (a religion that was extraordinarily bloody and sacrificial - particulary human sacrifice) goes a long way toward explaining all the "thousands" that died. Regardless, I think the correlating the Mayan system with a bible based system doesn't work well.
I admit, though, I have only a passing familiarity with Mayan history and culture. You probably know more that I.

Originally posted by Chileice During the Middle Ages millions were "converted" so as not to face death for not obeying the laws layed down by "christian" Rome. But what kind of "conversions" are those? The threat of death does not make accepting Christ easier, it makes it more difficult. It also makes it impossible to have any idea who have really accepted Christ and who just mumble the words to avoid the punishment.

I'm not aware of any particular aspect of the bible-based justice system requiring anyone to adhere to any specific religious belief at all. No law against being an athiest, pagan, frog-worshipper, whatever. So, I don't see any second Spanish Inquisition resulting from the application of this justice system.
There are laws, though, against specific behavior. You're personal beliefs had best not influence you to commit illegal acts or advocate illegal activity.

Originally posted by Chileice A system with that many penalties for death would surely kill thousands of innocent people. Imagine the jealous girlfriend who goes back to accuse the ex-boyfriend of rebellion. The neighbour who gets his neighbour killed over some minor property violation. The channels for legalized vengeance are thrown wide open. The McCarthy era of snatching on people would look like kindergarten stuff. The world would become a giant witch-hunt.

This system also strongly discourages others from false witness by imposing on them the same penalty, if caught and convicted of false testimony, that they sought to bring against another. The jealous girlfriend better have two or three strong witnesses or physical evidence against her "ex". And she better hope, if she does pull it off, that she isn't found out at some later date. She would be risking the death penalty herself, you see. Maybe my ex-wife is crazy enough to try something like that, but I doubt most people are.
In fact, I don't think even my ex- is that crazy.

Originally posted by Chileice I'm sure all that stuff deserves death. But that is where we must believe "vengeance is mine," says the Lord, "I will repay." and for us we must try to be at peace with all men in so far as it sepends on us. Even in the OT God says time and again that is he is slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness (HeSeD) and relenting of evil. Why are we more vengeant than God?!

"vengeance is mine...I will repay" is part of a larger set of verse. Taken all together it clearly indicates that God commands us not to seek personal vengeance but, rather, give way to the governing authority to enforce the law and seek vengeance against criminals on God's behalf. This doesn't indicate that God is an ill-tempered, violent homicidal maniac. It shows Him to be a God that cares enough to provide for our protection - from others and from our own sinful nature.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
I'm not aware of any particular aspect of the bible-based justice system requiring anyone to adhere to any specific religious belief at all. No law against being an athiest, pagan, frog-worshipper, whatever.

Actually, those things come under the purview of blasphemy, idolatry and apostacy; I mean, if the statement "God does not exist" isn't blasphemous, then I don't know what is...

There are laws, though, against specific behavior. You're personal beliefs had best not influence you to commit illegal acts or advocate illegal activity.

But publically being an atheist/pagan/frog worshipper could be construed as advocating the offenses mentioned above...

This system also strongly discourages others from false witness by imposing on them the same penalty, if caught and convicted of false testimony, that they sought to bring against another. The jealous girlfriend better have two or three strong witnesses or physical evidence against her "ex". And she better hope, if she does pull it off, that she isn't found out at some later date. She would be risking the death penalty herself, you see.

There is a ridiculously easy way around that: build your case, screw over your quarry, then catch the first plane out of the country. It isn't like the Crown is going to send agents out to retrieve you from foreign soil...

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Gerald
Actually, those things come under the purview of blasphemy, idolatry and apostacy; I mean, if the statement "God does not exist" isn't blasphemous, then I don't know what is...

I think there is some debate whether or not blasphemy, etc. would be applicable in a christian bible-based justice system. The point of debate being whether or not it is a "symbolic" law meant to clearly and forcefully illustrate Israel as set apart from the rest of the world. I personally don't think it would be applicable.
From a common sense standpoint, here goes: Israel was largely concerned with being apart, and being clearly seen as apart, from the rest of the world. An example, if you will. A christian nation with a christian justice system should never require every citizen to proclaim faith in Christ (which would, as you suggest, merely encourage people to lie as well as discourage any reasonable debate on christianity itself - neither a desireable thing, I am sure most christians would agree).

Originally posted by Gerald But publically being an atheist/pagan/frog worshipper could be construed as advocating the offenses mentioned above...

I agree. Again, any law against anything other than the strictest definition of blasphemy would discourage any debate on christianity and would make witnessing to unbelievers nearly impossible. First, finding anyone who dared claim to be an unbeliever. Second, finding one willing to ask questions or express doubt. The spectre of that particular law looming overhead would make either admission fearful at the very least.
The whole question of a law forbidding blasphemy would make for an interesting debate, though, wouldn't it? I'd be interested.

Originally posted by Gerald There is a ridiculously easy way around that: build your case, screw over your quarry, then catch the first plane out of the country. It isn't like the Crown is going to send agents out to retrieve you from foreign soil...

Hmm....no, I don't think that would be any more likely than it is today. Less so, in fact. I don't think it would be any more or less difficult to pull off under either system. Under the current system, of course, if you tried this against, say, a celebrity or public figure you can bet you'll find it nearly impossible to get them convicted no matter how much "evidence" you fabricate. You probably won't find it all that hard, conversely, to falsely convict Joe Schmo, the high school drop-out who can't afford a good lawyer.
Under the biblical system it might, admittedly be slightly easier. Though only slightly. You'll still need clear evidence and that's not nearly easy as it may sound. There's a reason why there isn't a common occurence of people framing other people. And I can't help but think it would be far less an occurence if you risked facing the same penalty you're trying to hang on someone else if you are caught.
Still and all, let's say you pull it off. I don't think you would have found it any easier that under the current justice system. And now you face a far more fearful punishment if you're caught (assuming you set your enemy up on a death penalty conviction). And I wouldn't discount the Crown sending agents to retrieve you from foreign soil. Remember, you've not only committed murder but you've attacked the entire legal system itself and challenged the Crown as well by fleeing the country. I think the king would take that personally.
And anyway, that's what extradition treaties are for.

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

According to Webster: Blasphemy = 1) A contemptuous or profane act, utterance or writing concerning God. 2) Claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 3) An irreverent act, attitude, or utterance regarding something inviolable or sacrosanct.

I think we can agree that #3 does not apply. So, as for #1 and #2 I have to say that outlawing blasphemy might not be as problematic as I thought. I don't think it's all that difficult to exercise criticism, even of a biblical justice system or christian constitutional monarchy without behaving or speaking in a profane or contemptuous manner toward God. Nor claiming the attributes or rights of God.

I'd be curious as thw what the consensus on this issue is here.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
I don't think it's all that difficult to exercise criticism, even of a biblical justice system or christian constitutional monarchy without behaving or speaking in a profane or contemptuous manner toward God. Nor claiming the attributes or rights of God.

I gather then, that you do not consider the statement "God does not exist" to be contemptuous?

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God's Criminal Justice System...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: God's Criminal Justice System...

Originally posted by Turbo
Including flogging?

Apparently you haven't read this thread throughly. Am I surprised, nah.

If the government could use the flogging in a redemptive manner then, yes. The government also needs to set some objective standards regarding the amount of flogging per crime. It needs to be administered justly.

I asked Turbo:

Sexual activity with a woman [the man's wife] who is menstruating deserves the death penalty according to the less then superior covenant. Is this law symbolic to you too?

Turbo responds under pressure: Yes.

Whoaaaaa, wait a minute, Turbo. This wasn't a moral sin in the Old Covenant? Are you sure you want to stick with your response? It's going to be a slipperly slope for you from this point.

Way to focus on the most vague item on the list, Freak. Besides, the man described did all of those things, not just one.

But it doesn't say that, Turbo.

The Bible says: "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them):

The key word to focus on is : any. If the person does any of them then he is guilty & should be put to death!

Will such a man live? He shall NOT! So, back to my original question: Who under the Old Covenant, Turbo, escaped from doing a detesable thing? Everyone is guilty so everyone desrves death. But, oh, the mercy & grace of God.

If you were king, what punishment (if any) would you have carried out on such a man guilty of all of those things?

Living under the Old or New Covenant?

So these countries are unjust because they don't execute people? If they carried them out, would that be just?

Even the countries that carry out the death penalty are unjust in carrying out the death penalty. This is one of the problems I have with the death penalty.

If the Gospel is a much more powerful tool, does that mean that capital punishment is altogether powerless as a deterrent?

Turbo, Bible 101, what is the power of God unto salvation--resulting in a changed life? Is it the Gospel or death penalty? Romans 1 tells us it's the Gospel.

Paul spoke very little of the justice system. Do you know why Turbo? God led Paul to write things down that would change the heart of men--the Gospel.

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The Gospel overshadows the death penalty. For the death penalty is weak compared to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And where do prison sentences fit into the spectrum?

Governments have a responsbility to punish evil doers but death penalty is not an option in accordance to the New Covenant

Are they as powerful than the gospel?

No!

If not, should we do away with them altogether?

No.

Yes, I completely agree. But if we were to correct that problem that would be a good thing, right?

But you can't! This is the problem, man is totally depraved and man makes up the governments of the world.

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Gerald
I gather then, that you do not consider the statement "God does not exist" to be contemptuous?

Clearly, no. I don't see how expressing disbelief can reasonably be equated with contempt. I have, however, seen many an athiest express thier disbelief in a very contemptuous manner. But I don't see how one necessarily follows the other.
I agree, though, a corrupt authority could make the case that it is. But a corrupt authority doesn't really need much wiggle-room to "justify" itself when it persecutes it's enemies.
Still, as I said, it's debateable.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
A christian nation with a christian justice system should never require every citizen to proclaim faith in Christ (which would, as you suggest, merely encourage people to lie as well as discourage any reasonable debate on christianity itself - neither a desireable thing, I am sure most christians would agree).

I fail to to see why the requirement of such a proclamation is bad. And to the fundamentalist, nothing pertaining to Christianity is debateable.

Again, any law against anything other than the strictest definition of blasphemy would discourage any debate on christianity and would make witnessing to unbelievers nearly impossible. First, finding anyone who dared claim to be an unbeliever. Second, finding one willing to ask questions or express doubt. The spectre of that particular law looming overhead would make either admission fearful at the very least.

But, in the society you envision, wouldn't the Christian message be so ubiquitous as to be almost unavoidable? If it is printed in every newspaper and blared from every radio and TV, I can see no need for person-to-person witnessing. If an unbeliever converts, he can quietly join a congregation, keeping his former unbelief a secret between him and God.

The whole question of a law forbidding blasphemy would make for an interesting debate, though, wouldn't it? I'd be interested.

Well, such laws are pretty effective in Muslim countries...

And anyway, that's what extradition treaties are for.

If I were the leader of a given country, I would have no reason to enter into any sort of treaty with the ACM. In fact, I'd be inclined to open my borders to people fleeing (the fact that unbelievers tend to be more educated in technical fields bodes well for technological and economic advancement...:greedy:

 

[Freak]

Turbo:

So, if a biblical system of criminal justice were in effect, including capitol punishment for adultery...
...what, if any, grounds would justify divorce?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
Clearly, no. I don't see how expressing disbelief can reasonably be equated with contempt. I have, however, seen many an athiest express thier disbelief in a very contemptuous manner.

Really? How did they do so? I could use some new material...

I agree, though, a corrupt authority could make the case that it is. But a corrupt authority doesn't really need much wiggle-room to "justify" itself when it persecutes it's enemies.

And that is my bone of contention: that the ACM would be corrupt soon if not immediately after its formation.

The ACM claims to be a constitutional monarchy, but it is in practice an autocracy. The monarch answers to no one but God, and his Judges answer to no one but the monarch; the only way to stop him is with a bullet in the brain or poison in the coffee.

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

I'm afraid I can't argue that. I personally think it's impossible for any human-run system of government, even an inspired (i.e. by God) system, to avoid corruption. Nor, for that matter, eventual moral collapse. No government lives forever. Sooner or later they all die. Typically they are either murdered by their enemies or, if they live long enough, they go slap raving loony. Consider our nation today. Seems to me it's leaning more towards loony these days.
Which is the point, really. I think this system of criminal justice is the best system we'll ever conceivably have. I think it would work better than anything else we could come up with. To argue that it could cause great harm if corrupted is beside the point. The system we have now is corrupt and causes great harm. Doesn't mean it wasn't fairly good to begin with. It's just been corrupted.

And if you argue that a biblical justice system is more dangerous, when corrupted, than the one we have now then I disagree. There is a level of corruption and tyranny that the people will tolerate from the authority before rebelling. That doesn't change depending on what type of government or justice system is in effect. Corrupt leaders would have to break/corrupt one system just as much as another, meet with the same amount of resistance and deal out the same amount of damage.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
I'm afraid I can't argue that. I personally think it's impossible for any human-run system of government, even an inspired (i.e. by God) system, to avoid corruption. Nor, for that matter, eventual moral collapse. No government lives forever. Sooner or later they all die. Typically they are either murdered by their enemies or, if they live long enough, they go slap raving loony. Consider our nation today. Seems to me it's leaning more towards loony these days.

Isn't that true. That is why the death penalty needs to be put away. Besides, the New Covenant doesn't mandate the government to use the death penalty.

Which is the point, really. I think this system of criminal justice is the best system we'll ever conceivably have. I think it would work better than anything else we could come up with.

When it comes down to the essential issues of life & death we ought to be careful. I agree God's way is the bettter way as we understand it in light of the better covenant-the New Covenant.

And like you pointed out earlier:

So, a biblical system of criminal justice were in effect, including capitol punishment for adultery...
...what, if any, grounds would justify divorce?
Or, rather, how can you seek a divorce of adultery under a system of law where adultery is punishable by death? Assuming, of course, you want a divorce and not the execution of your unfaithful spouse.

You: Judge I want a divorce.
Judge: On what grounds?
You: Uh...er...

So, what am I missing here?

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Gerald
I fail to to see why the requirement of such a proclamation is bad. And to the fundamentalist, nothing pertaining to Christianity is debateable.

If it's a christian nation we are talking about, the ACM for example, that dares to claim to serve Christ, then how can it stifle debate on christianity? The ultimate goal always being to bring others to Christ. That requires, at least, honest discussion. Outlawing disbelief is irrational, impossible and counter-productive.

Originally posted by Gerald But, in the society you envision, wouldn't the Christian message be so ubiquitous as to be almost unavoidable? If it is printed in every newspaper and blared from every radio and TV, I can see no need for person-to-person witnessing. If an unbeliever converts, he can quietly join a congregation, keeping his former unbelief a secret between him and God.

But even at that point in history when the United States could honestly claim to be a "christian" nation, when christian faith was the rule, athiesm and every other faith were hardly unknown. Perhaps uncommon, but hardly unknown. It seems obvious to me that if you care whether someone goes to hell or not (hard to be a christian and not list that as your primary concern) you would strongly disagree with any attempt to force people to falsely claim belief in Christ and/or outlaw any discussion on the matter. How could you possibly go about witnessing to unbelievers if you can't find them?

Orignially posted by Gerald Well, such laws are pretty effective in Muslim countries...

Hmm. Depends on the effect you are shooting for. If it's shutting up anyone who disagrees with you, then yes it's very effective. If it's encouraging honest discussion and saving unbelievers then it's a state of affairs best avoided at any cost. I think it's conceivable to outlaw blasphemy, as defined, without risking these things. Still, as I've said, I'm still unsure whether that particular law can be considered symbolic or not.

Originally posted by Gerald If I were the leader of a given country, I would have no reason to enter into any sort of treaty with the ACM. In fact, I'd be inclined to open my borders to people fleeing (the fact that unbelievers tend to be more educated in technical fields bodes well for technological and economic advancement...:greedy:

Extradition treaties are mutually beneficial. They help to deter criminals in one nation from fleeing prosection to another. I would think that you would agreeable with such a treaty. Of course, if not, the ACM would probably be faced with the decision whether or not to close borders with you, at least on our end, to keep your criminals out.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
It seems obvious to me that if you care whether someone goes to hell or not (hard to be a christian and not list that as your primary concern) you would strongly disagree with any attempt to force people to falsely claim belief in Christ and/or outlaw any discussion on the matter. How could you possibly go about witnessing to unbelievers if you can't find them?

In these modern times, I am convinced that witnessing to unbelievers is ultimately futile. The number of established atheists who will genuinely convert is so small as to be negligible. About the only thing that can be done is to prevent them from poisoning other people's minds. Trying to talk over them is is inefficient and unreliable; if they get to the person first, the damage they cause is almost impossible to reverse (I'm using the atheism = disease analogy). It is far more efficient to simply silence them, as all but a very few are damned anyway. Better to send them on to hell and be done with it.

Depends on the effect you are shooting for. If it's shutting up anyone who disagrees with you, then yes it's very effective. If it's encouraging honest discussion and saving unbelievers then it's a state of affairs best avoided at any cost.

I've no reason to believe that this is not what the ACM would do.

Extradition treaties are mutually beneficial. They help to deter criminals in one nation from fleeing prosection to another. I would think that you would agreeable with such a treaty. Of course, if not, the ACM would probably be faced with the decision whether or not to close borders with you, at least on our end, to keep your criminals out.

I can assure you, the only "criminals" who would want to flee to the ACM would be...Christians. :chuckle:

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Gerald
In these modern times, I am convinced that witnessing to unbelievers is ultimately futile. The number of established atheists who will genuinely convert is so small as to be negligible. About the only thing that can be done is to prevent them from poisoning other people's minds. Trying to talk over them is is inefficient and unreliable; if they get to the person first, the damage they cause is almost impossible to reverse (I'm using the atheism = disease analogy). It is far more efficient to simply silence them, as all but a very few are damned anyway. Better to send them on to hell and be done with it.

What can I say to that? I can say that I've been there and I understand. But, two things:
1) Remember "pearls before swine"? When confronted with the kind of unbeliever that hates God you can be sure he'll hate you. Don't bother. Let them go. Otherwise, after beating your head against that brick wall for a while, you get to the point where you give up completely on leading anyone to Christ. Score one for the atheists.
2) I was an atheist. But I wasn't the kind that refused to believe because I hated the concept of God. I didn't believe because the God I had been taught didn't seem to make any sense. The bible sure didn't. It took a few common-sense christians who had actually :doh: read the bible to show me enough to make me realize it deserve a second look. Funny how christians can completely overlook the concept of bible study. Later I read the Plot (ala Enyart). Now I get it.

Originally posted by Gerald I've no reason to believe that this is not what the ACM would do.

I've explained why. If you assume the ACM is some evil theocracy bent on global domination or something, then I can see how you would believe that. I just don't get why you assume that.

Originally posted by Gerald I can assure you, the only "criminals" who would want to flee to the ACM would be...Christians. :chuckle:

Well, on second thought, if you don't want 'em then I guess we'll take them. I doubt they'll be quite as criminal under our laws as yours.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by 2MuchCoffeeMan
2) I was an atheist. But I wasn't the kind that refused to believe because I hated the concept of God. I didn't believe because the God I had been taught didn't seem to make any sense. The bible sure didn't. It took a few common-sense christians who had actually :doh: read the bible to show me enough to make me realize it deserve a second look. Funny how christians can completely overlook the concept of bible study. Later I read the Plot (ala Enyart). Now I get it.

I'm an atheist because any supernatural or transcendent dimension to existence has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. I've encountered no convincing evidence of magic, miracles, ghosts, spirits, demons, psychic powers or...deities. None whatsoever.

If you assume the ACM is some evil theocracy bent on global domination or something, then I can see how you would believe that. I just don't get why you assume that.

Because "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The monarch has absolute temporal power. You do the math...

Well, on second thought, if you don't want 'em then I guess we'll take them. I doubt they'll be quite as criminal under our laws as yours.

:noway:
What?? You think I'd let you have them?? No way! If I did that I'd have nobody to sacrifice messily to dark deities with unpronounceable names and lots of tentacles...

 

[2MuchCoffeeMan]

Originally posted by Gerald
:noway:
What?? You think I'd let you have them?? No way! If I did that I'd have nobody to sacrifice messily to dark deities with unpronounceable names and lots of tentacles...

Hey, wait a minute. I thought you were an athiest....