Some quotes from Jesus about everlasting life

[Stevil]

How is it manipulative?  Have you been manipulated into something or have you been able to use your own thoughts to come to your beliefs...err...disbelief, to be more specific. 

Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?

You're always on the attack, Stevil.  It's difficult to read your words in a calm tone.  I'll try though.  If I'm deluded, why would it cause you to get offendedby any of this?

I can see how you would think that about me. At times I do push you pretty hard. I find it very difficult with you to get straight answers, I don't know if you do this intentionally or not. Maybe that is how your mind works, maybe that is what is needed to study the bible and still believe it.
I have never said you are deluded.

[AnimatedDirt]

How is it manipulative?  Have you been manipulated into something or have you been able to use your own thoughts to come to your beliefs...err...disbelief, to be more specific. 

Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?

Not at all.  Have you died as a result of a chain letter?  If you believed the chain letter was real, would you pass it on?
If not, on what basis?  (I would say being stubborn.)  If you did, it would mean life is worth a stamp or a few moments handing it off.  There is no manipulation.

You're always on the attack, Stevil.  It's difficult to read your words in a calm tone.  I'll try though.  If I'm deluded, why would it cause you to get offendedby any of this?

I can see how you would think that about me. At times I do push you pretty hard. I find it very difficult with you to get straight answers, I don't know if you do this intentionally or not. Maybe that is how your mind works, maybe that is what is needed to study the bible and still believe it.

I give you straight answers.  If you don't think them straight, ask for clarification.  If that's all I can give, I'll tell you.  Otherwise, I given you straight answers.  The problem is you may simply not like the answer given.  Could that be the case -- and therefore you deem it not straight -- could that be the case?

I have never said you are deluded.

I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too.  I lump you in that.  If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.

[DeterminedJuliet]

One word:  Choice or Freewill.

I am totally confused by this. Isn't freewill just an expression of choice?

Sure.  One chooses their beliefs of their own freewill.  Both fit the point.  I simply meant either of the two fit.  Maybe I should've written, "Two words: Choice, Freewill" ?   

Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice" or "freewill".

Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.

I still can't figure out if you accepted that in my original (tongue-in-cheek) statement, or if you took it to mean some kind of round-about acceptance-though-denial of God.

[AnimatedDirt]

Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice" or "freewill".

Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.

I understand.  However we, you and I, are privy to the same information and yet I'm Christian, a believer, and you're Atheist, a non-believer.  You said it yourself.  You deny the whole framework.  You've made your choice based on your own intellect.  You can't deny Christ on the same vane as the FSM...there is no set of books that have existed for a few thousand years making any claims from a FSM.   

I still can't figure out if you accepted that in my original (tongue-in-cheek) statement, or if you took it to mean some kind of round-about acceptance-though-denial of God.

Maybe in a sense I did ( damn! ), however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief.  You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions.  If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice.  Or am I wrong on that?

[Stevil]

Have you ever received a chain letter? "Pass this on to 5 other people otherwise you will die"
Does that sound in some way manipulative?

Not at all.  Have you died as a result of a chain letter?  If you believed the chain letter was real, would you pass it on?
If not, on what basis?  (I would say being stubborn.)  If you did, it would mean life is worth a stamp or a few moments handing it off.  There is no manipulation.

Manipulation

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics

Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is underhanded or deceptive or abusive?
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is aimed to change the behaviour of the victim?

How is this differnt from the "Believe otherwise you will go to hell" phrase?
You might argue that the go to hell part is not deceptive, bu from an atheists perspective it is deceptive.

I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too.  I lump you in that.  If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.

I have asked this of you in the past, but I will do it again.
Please do not put words in my mouth. If I have not called you deluded then do not say that I have.

With regards to being outspoken, obviously this is subjective.
If you are referring to the altercasions that I have had with you
1. On one occassion you suggested to a HAF member (a rape victum) that she enjoyed rape. I stood up to you on that occassion for obvious reasons
2. On one occassion you were telling me that I thought the bible was a fairytale. I asked you not to put words in my mouth
3. On one occassion you told me that I should be grateful that Jesus died for me. I told you I am not part of the mythical world described in the bible and asked you not to refer to the crucifiction of Jesus as relating to me that I want to have nothing to do with blood sacrifice.
4. On one occassion you implied to a HAF member that she was going to hell or annihilation because she knowingly rejected eternal life offered by Jesus. I stood up to you because I don't tolerate death threats or torture threats on myself or others in communities that I belong to.

Otherwise I am open to debate on stuff. I will express my opinion, make a case for it, show some evidence if I have some.
I enjoy this forum it helps me practise debate and influence skills, it helps me to become a better writer and become better at expressing my ideas. Best of all it helps me expand on my thoughts and ideas and learn from others.

I don't understand beleivers, I have never been one. But I don't hate them, and I don't disrespect them by calling them delusional. We do get some crazy ones coming to this forum on occassion, but we do also get some normal ones too.
At times I try to understand them, some give straight answers so that I can have a decent conversation with them, some side shift and twist so that it becomes quite a challenge to have an honest exploritory descussion.
My biggest personal challenge is that I can sometimes get frustrated and maybe that manifests itself in conversation with you more than with others.

[AnimatedDirt]

Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is underhanded or deceptive or abusive?
Would you not agree that the "otherwise you will die" part is aimed to change the behaviour of the victim?

How is this differnt from the "Believe otherwise you will go to hell" phrase?
You might argue that the go to hell part is not deceptive, bu from an atheists perspective it is deceptive.

No.  It's not underhanded or deceptive if it is true
Yes.  For their advantage and they would cease therefore, to be a victim.

Do you believe life to be deceptive giving us happiness, family, kids, hobbies...and yet everyone dies?  How is death deceptive if you acknowledge that death comes to all.  If God isn't.  Death.  If God is.  Death.  How can you be decieved?

Pascal's Wager is not deceptive.  It simply states the facts be one right or the other.  Both you and I simply stand on the opposite sides of that wager.  It seems to me this offends you and I cannot for the life of me figure out why...?

I think it is the concensus of the vast majority of outspoken Atheists and rings true here at HAF too.  I lump you in that.  If I'm wrong about you specifically, tell me so.

I have asked this of you in the past, but I will do it again.
Please do not put words in my mouth. If I have not called you deluded then do not say that I have.

Again, I never said YOU specifically.  However if you wish, the next time I make this minor point, I'll try and remember to exclude you from the thinking that "AD" is deluded.  If I forget, remind me again.

With regards to being outspoken, obviously this is subjective.
If you are referring to the altercasions that I have had with you
1. On one occassion you suggested to a HAF member (a rape victum) that she enjoyed rape. I stood up to you on that occassion for obvious reasons
2. On one occassion you were telling me that I thought the bible was a fairytale. I asked you not to put words in my mouth
3. On one occassion you told me that I should be grateful that Jesus died for me. I told you I am not part of the mythical world described in the bible and asked you not to refer to the crucifiction of Jesus as relating to me that I want to have nothing to do with blood sacrifice.
4. On one occassion you implied to a HAF member that she was going to hell or annihilation because she knowingly rejected eternal life offered by Jesus. I stood up to you because I don't tolerate death threats or torture threats on myself or others in communities that I belong to.

1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification.  I asked a question on her very words.  I was banned for being insensitive. 

2.  Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?

3.  I'm not sure I said you should be grateful.  If I did, I shouldn't have.  I think you were reading into my words though.  You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify.  It's your choice.

4.  For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell.  I simply stated her choice was noted.  Her choice.  She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.

Otherwise I am open to debate on stuff. I will express my opinion, make a case for it, show some evidence if I have some.
I enjoy this forum it helps me practise debate and influence skills, it helps me to become a better writer and become better at expressing my ideas. Best of all it helps me expand on my thoughts and ideas and learn from others.

I don't understand beleivers, I have never been one. But I don't hate them, and I don't disrespect them by calling them delusional. We do get some crazy ones coming to this forum on occassion, but we do also get some normal ones too.
At times I try to understand them, some give straight answers so that I can have a decent conversation with them, some side shift and twist so that it becomes quite a challenge to have an honest exploritory descussion.
My biggest personal challenge is that I can sometimes get frustrated and maybe that manifests itself in conversation with you more than with others.

Likewise.  I have a feeling you and I would do great in person, but we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Okay, yeah, that clears it up. Saying "one word" implied to me that something had to be "choice" or "freewill".

Though, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not really acknowledging freewill in the same way that you intend it. I'm not choosing to turn away from a God I believe in. I'm denying the whole framework. I'm using my freewill to deny Jesus just as much as I'm using my freewill to deny the flying spaghetti monster.

I understand.  However we, you and I, are privy to the same information and yet I'm Christian, a believer, and you're Atheist, a non-believer.  You said it yourself.  You deny the whole framework.  You've made your choice based on your own intellect.  You can't deny Christ on the same vane as the FSM...there is no set of books that have existed for a few thousand years making any claims from a FSM.

Actually, I disagree on this. Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vein that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me? Ideas are ideas; people might like old ideas because it gives them a sense of history, but if you are analyzing an idea based solely on its validity, it's irrelevant. Humans have some old ideas that are really stupid and I'd argue that social functionalism is usually what lets an idea "hang on" rather than the idea actually having any inherent value. Sexism existed (and exists) for generations because it was functional to those in power, not because it was a good or moral idea.

however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief.  You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions.  If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice.  Or am I wrong on that?

You're right on most accounts, but there was also another element. I FELT like it couldn't possibly be true (yes! Atheists do base some beliefs and decisions on feelings. Partly.) There was a long period of time when I was probably what you would consider a "doubting Christian" where, intellectually, I couldn't reconcile everything, thought the bible didn't add up, etc. etc. But I still felt like a Christian. Because I "chose" to, because I wanted to and because I just did.

And then, when I was studying the Holocaust in university, I remember reading a first-hand account about how two nazi soliders saw a Jewish girl walking along a street in the country. They walked up to her and, for no reason whatsoever, one solider took the girl by the arm, the other solider took the girl by the leg, they tore her apart with their bare hands and discarded her body on the side of the road. Then my brain just flicked, like a light-switch, with "Nope! No God. No Jesus. It's bullshit."

I don't know why it happened at that moment, and, as a Christian, I had often defended the horrible things that had happened in the world ( it's not the actions of God, it's the actions of man, we need suffering to have hope, etc etc), but at that moment, EMOTIONALLY, I went from being a conflicted Christian to an atheist. And then everything else fell into place it and it was the best philosophical shift that's ever happened to me.

Now, of course, I don't expect this to "de-convert" you anymore than you could expect to "re-convert" me with a story about religious ecstasy. But it's a real, relevant factor in my not believing any more. Feelings definitely play into it.

[AnimatedDirt]

Actually, I disagree on this. Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vain that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me? Ideas are ideas; people might like old ideas because it gives them a sense of history, but if you are analyzing an idea based solely on its validity, it's irrelevant. Humans have some old ideas that are really stupid and I'd argue that social functionalism is usually what lets an idea "hang on" rather than the idea actually having any inherent value. Sexism existed (and exists) for generations because it was functional to those in power, not because it was a good or moral idea.

Simply that there is no book's claims to deny, there's no history to deny regardless of some evidence, however slight or non-existent you may think it to be. (evidence for and against is easily found all over online)  The FSM makes no claim whatsoever.  Sure, you can deny the FSM and you can deny Christ...but one has no evidence, while the other you likely deny the evidence.

There was NEVER a point in your life you believed there to be a FSM...however you say you used to be a Christian.

I'm not married to this point so I can leave it that you deny Christ/God.  That's the whole point really.

however the bottom line here is that we can assume YOU'VE made your stand and it's opposite belief.  You've chosen to disbelieve, and I get that you think it's on the basis of no proof or even inability to reconcile apparent contradictions.  If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice.  Or am I wrong on that?

You're right on most accounts, but there was also another element. I FELT like it couldn't possibly be true (yes! Atheists do base some beliefs and decisions on feelings. Partly.) There was a long period of time when I was probably what you would consider a "doubting Christian" where, intellectually, I couldn't reconcile everything, thought the bible didn't add up, etc. etc. But I still felt like a Christian. Because I "chose" to, because I wanted to and because I just did.

And then, when I was studying the Holocaust in university, I remember reading a first-hand account about how two nazi soliders saw a Jewish girl walking along a street in the country. They walked up to her and, for no reason whatsoever, one solider took the girl by the arm, the other solider took the girl by the leg, they tore her apart with their bare hands and discarded her body on the side of the road. Then my brain just flicked, like a light-switch, with "Nope! No God. No Jesus. It's bullshit."

I don't know why it happened at that moment, and, as a Christian, I had often defended the horrible things that had happened in the world ( it's not the actions of God, it's the actions of man, we need suffering to have hope, etc etc), but at that moment, EMOTIONALLY, I went from being a conflicted Christian to an atheist. And then everything else fell into place it and it was the best philosophical shift that's ever happened to me.

Now, of course, I don't expect this to "de-convert" you anymore than you could expect to "re-convert" me with a story about religious ecstasy. But it's a real, relevant factor in my not believing any more. Feelings definitely play into it.

Well, you're not alone in not having all the answers.  I don't have them all either.  I don't understand how God can love us like his children, yet sit back and allow some things to go on.  I don't know...I really don't.  I will never understand that THIS side of life.  My faith is on what He did for me and them even if they die and even if I die.  I want the other life He offers.  I want it, so I keep my faith and trust that all will be revealed to me when the time comes.  I will not renounce my faith should I read about the acts of Men.  I already know what Man is capable of.  I'm not easily surprised.  I'm just finishing up the book, "Night".  I cannot believe the things that book relays as their plight.  I also cannot believe that inspite of them being witness to these atrocities, they (some) remained faithful...deluded?  Maybe.  If God is, then those that remain faithful will be rewarded with something of vast value..above all they endured.  If not, then they simply suffered at the hands of animated stardust.

[Stevil]

Do you believe life to be deceptive giving us happiness, family, kids, hobbies...and yet everyone dies?  How is death deceptive if you acknowledge that death comes to all.  If God isn't.  Death.  If God is.  Death.  How can you be decieved?

When I die I cease to exist, I am not confronted by some magical, judgmental, sadistic entity whom proceeds to burn me to death.
That prospect could be scary for a small child, they might be manipulated into following Christianity. For an adult it is just dumb and unnecessary, no different from the chain letter. If the author of the chain letter was at your front door, would you tell them to piss off? If you saw them doing this to your neighbors, would you want to chase them away? This is how I feel when I see someone doing this to me or people in my community.

Pascal's Wager is not deceptive.  It simply states the facts be one right or the other.

Lets look at Pascal's wager
"An argument according to which belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."

1. How can belief in God be rational when their is no clear definition of what a god is (fact). The only rational answer is to be ignostic (fact).
2. Believing that god exists (falsely or not) leads to many atrocities and much oppression and conflict within society. "Witches" get burned, women oppressed, homosexuals persecuted, atheists hated, people stoned to death, rape victims imprisoned, planes flown into buildings, heretics tortured, wars fought... (fact)
3. Eternal damnation is not a fact, it is a belief that requires absence of facts.

1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification.  I asked a question on her very words.  I was banned for being insensitive.

Unfortunately I am not that naive, neither are the HAF admins.

2.  Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?

This is a false dichotomy "either historically true or fairy tales", really AD, do you think you are applying personal integrity in your argument here?
Why do libraries categorise books as Fictional and non Fictional as opposed to Fairy tales and non Fairy tales?

3.  I'm not sure I said you should be grateful.  If I did, I shouldn't have.  I think you were reading into my words though.  You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify.  It's your choice.

It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.

4.  For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell.  I simply stated her choice was noted.  Her choice.  She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.

I am not naive enough to think that it ends there. Her choice, so what? Who cares? Why is it a big deal whether she made a choice or not?

but we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.

I am interested in discussing disbelief in deities, you are interested in discussing belief, you would think we can have some decent debates. But I don't think together we engage in honest explorative discussion, for whatever reason.

[AnimatedDirt]

Eternal damnation is not a fact, it is a belief that requires absence of facts.

Eternal damnation as the Bible explains or eternal non-existence as you and I both know to be true.  I can drop it here as the point is we both believe in eternal death either way.

1. I don't want to rehash that, however if you go back and look, I asked for clarification.  I asked a question on her very words.  I was banned for being insensitive.

Unfortunately I am not that naive, neither are the HAF admins.

We disagree.  I don't want to rehash it.  I already was punished for it.  You win.

2.  Is it then your position that the Bible is historically true?

This is a false dichotomy "either historically true or fairy tales", really AD, do you think you are applying personal integrity in your argument here?
Why do libraries categorise books as Fictional and non Fictional as opposed to Fairy tales and non Fairy tales?

Ok.  Fiction then.  I don't see the difference.  Again, you win.

3.  I'm not sure I said you should be grateful.  If I did, I shouldn't have.  I think you were reading into my words though.  You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify.  It's your choice.

It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.

If fiction, you are right.  If not...Pascal's Wager.  You don't like that?  Ok.  You win again.

4.  For the last time, I never implied she was going to hell.  I simply stated her choice was noted.  Her choice.  She exercised her freewill on the matter and made a choice, or seemed to do so in print.

I am not naive enough to think that it ends there. Her choice, so what? Who cares? Why is it a big deal whether she made a choice or not?

Once again.  She made a choice.  She exercised her freewill.

but we butt heads online discussing that which my mom said is one of two subjects I should never discuss with friends.

I am interested in discussing disbelief in deities, you are interested in discussing belief, you would think we can have some decent debates. But I don't think together we engage in honest explorative discussion, for whatever reason.

Once again you seem to misread.  If we were "friends", I wouldn't be discussing this with you, therefore we would get along just fine.  Don't like that either?  Ok.  You win.  We would not like each other much.  Better?

[Guardian85]

3.  I'm not sure I said you should be grateful.  If I did, I shouldn't have.  I think you were reading into my words though.  You don't have to be grateful...just to clarify.  It's your choice.

It's not my choice, the question does not apply to me. I am not a character in the book.

If fiction, you are right.  If not...Pascal's Wager.  You don't like that?  Ok.  You win again.

Pascal's wager? You're seriously going there? That argument has been shot down so many times, I am surprised you would invoke it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w1.htm

[Stevil]

You win

Oh my.
Oh well, time to move on.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Well, you're not alone in not having all the answers.  I don't have them all either.  I don't understand how God can love us like his children, yet sit back and allow some things to go on.  I don't know...I really don't.  I will never understand that THIS side of life.  My faith is on what He did for me and them even if they die and even if I die.  I want the other life He offers.  I want it, so I keep my faith and trust that all will be revealed to me when the time comes.  I will not renounce my faith should I read about the acts of Men.  I already know what Man is capable of.  I'm not easily surprised.  I'm just finishing up the book, "Night".  I cannot believe the things that book relays as their plight.  I also cannot believe that inspite of them being witness to these atrocities, they (some) remained faithful...deluded?  Maybe.  If God is, then those that remain faithful will be rewarded with something of vast value..above all they endured.  If not, then they simply suffered at the hands of animated stardust.

Yes, well, all we have here are the actions of humankind. I'll give you that.

[Sandra Craft]

If you've concluded contradictions, you've weighed both sides and have made your choice.  Or am I wrong on that?

I think you're wrong on that.  Atheism seems to me a default position when you're not given evidence or at least a good reason to believe otherwise.  It's hard to say I choose this or that when "this" is an apparently empty space and "that" is saying "this" is an apparently empty space.  It's not an authentic choice -- I have no where else to go but "that".

[Stevil]

Why can't I deny Jesus is the same vain that I deny any idea that doesn't make sense to me?

I don't know if you have heard of Kevin Crady, he is an ex-Christian, very very smart and articulate and seems to know his bible inside out. He writes some really interesting posts.
Here is an excert from one that might be relevant to your question here.

...from the Christian point of view, we have free will when it comes to the question of God's existence (i.e. whether he is a factual part of reality or not), but not when it comes to evaluating his character and deciding how to respond to his existence (if he exists).

Why is Christianity set up this way?  What does it accomplish?

First of all, it defines the question of God's existence as a moral rather than a factual issue.  If you do not believe in the Christian God, and/or believe in some other god(s), you are not merely mistaken or uninformed about the facts, you are morally wrong.  To disbelieve in the Christian God is an act of wickedness, a sin.  This enables Christian evangelists to bypass critical thought and appeal to guilt, peer pressure, and the like instead of validating their position with reference to facts in reality.  "Jesus died for your sins.  He loves you so much!  How could you disbelieve in Him?"  If guilt-tripping doesn't work, this approach has the benefit of legitimizing punishment for disbelief.  After all, if disbelief is evil (rather than just mistaken or uninformed) then it is perfectly legitimate for God--or his appointed Spokesmen, from Moses to Torquemada--to apply threats or punishments, just as with any other crime.

We would never consider punishing someone for being wrong about the position of Earth in the Solar System or the existence of phlogiston.  The very idea is absurd.  But when it comes to religion, it is virtually universally accepted that having the wrong religion or none is a moral offense.  Even in countries with vaunted rights of freedom of religion, atheists are inherently suspect (according to a recent survey, we are considered less trustworthy than Islamic suicide bombers), and people who hold to sufficiently foreign religions are criminal.  To test this latter proposition, try parading a giant carving of a penis through the streets of New York as part of a fertility rite (as is done in Japan) or starting a church in which magic mushrooms or LSD is taken as a sacrament in order to commune with the Divine.1  Even in the "land of the free" and "secular" Europe, "freedom of relgion" is limited to "religions that Christians can tolerate." 2

And so we come back to the original topic of this thread.  By defining the quesiton of God's existence as a moral choice rather than an issue of fact, Christians have implicitly legitimized punishing people for not being Christians.  Even those who piously claim that we do not have the authority to do so on Earth3 still hold that God is entitled to punish unbelief with literally infinite severity.  With a single stroke, Christians have relieved themselves of the burden of proof they would bear regarding any other claim4 while entitling themselves to use not only guilt manipulation and peer pressure, but force or the threat of force (even if it's just Pascal's Wager) as tools to manufacture assent.

How diabolically clever!

Here is a link to his post so you can read it in context if you want http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4181.msg71031#msg71031