Claus:

I'm amazed at the opinions offered by nlMediator and desthan!

desthan, you conclude that going up to the altar for deliverance = "consenting to any method Oyedepo chooses"!

nlMediator, you conclude that being assaulted is a risk that a reasonable person should expect when they go and seek spiritual help.
If anyone actually takes the above conclusions to be valid, then clearly they are too far gone and one cannot expect any reasonable discussion to take place.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

My brother, you're misrepresenting my position. I didn't say that being assaulted is to be expected in seeking spiritual help. This is not about spiritual help in generic terms, but a particular kind of spiritual help, namely deliverance. I've seen a number of deliverance sessions and things get rough sometimes. Even here on this forum, we've read of people being asked to expose their bosoms with pus oozing, rolling on dirt, etc. If people know that that's how things are done and voluntarily submit themsleves to that, they have no remedy in law. Now, there may be certain practices that cross the line and the perpetrator will be culpable as no reasonable person would be deemed to have consented, but that's not what I'm reading here: some of you seem to suggest that normal rules on assault apply all the time, thereby nullifying the volenti defense. If you have a moment, could you respond to this question: a guy goes to a native doctor to prepare a charm to make him bullet-proof. To test the charm, the native doctor shoots a gun at the guy, killing him. Do you think the victim's family can successfully sue? I'd appreciate your answer.

I am not surprised by the responses to this topic.

In the first instance culture and tradition have created a religion of what I can only describe as churchality which is proclaimed under the banner of Christianity.

These practices are mostly at variance with the Bible the infallible word of God. If a man of God is suppose to be Christ like, can somebody tell me where Christ slapped somebody.

Finally Beautymc how do you define the term [b]"Man of God" [/b]or anybody else for that matter

@Nlmediator

This is from the same Wikipedia you relied upon (whose entry I maintain is basic and inadequate); anyway, no lawyer worth his salt will rely on Wikipedia for this purpose; it is really only useful as introductory material primarily for 'lay' people.

The defence {of volenti non fit injuria} has two main elements:

    The claimant was fully aware of all the risks involved, including both the nature and the extent of the risk; and
    The claimant expressly (by his statement) or impliedly (by his actions) consented to waive all claims for damages. His knowledge of the risk is not sufficient: sciens non est volens ("knowing is not volunteering". His consent must be free and voluntary, i.e. not brought about by duress. If the relationship between the claimant and defendant is such that there is doubt as to whether the consent was truly voluntary, such as the relationship between workers and employers, the courts are unlikely to find volenti.

It is not easy for a defendant to show both elements . . . .

And if you say I had not provided an explanation, I would say you should read my first response to you (post #81) again and carefully.

An angry slap by a person lacking self-control and unable to manage his anger and conceited impertinence is not something for which the courts will accept a defence of volenti. The slap was not in any reasonable sense a part of a "deliverance" session let alone a "prayer" session. In any event such an action is not known to true Christianity; it is only part of the ersatz and insane impostor parading itself as such. Even in a boxing contest where the opponents voluntarily agree to beat each other up, if one of them goes outside the rules and thereby causes injury to the other a defence of volenti will not avail (even wikipedia says this) ---- let alone a religious context.

First of all, wikipedia is not perfect. Everybody knows that. But it is sometimes useful, as numerous citations to materials from wikipedia in reputable journals attest. We shouldn't throw it out, simply because of wikipedia. What we need to do is challenge what is wrong about it, which even wikipedia itself encourages. In any case, it certainly beats opinions that you and I are exchanging here, as wikipedia at least seeks to provide authorities for its conclusions. If we reject wikipedia outright, we should also reject every opinion here. And rely only on treatises, casebooks and the like. So, the reference to lawyer worth his salt not relying on wikipedia is unhelpful.

On the substance, nobody argues that volenti will automatically avail the bishop. What I have maintained is that it is a defense he can raise and if the facts favor him, he'll be fine. You dispute that, yet you have given no reason why it cannot avail him. Saying that his christianity is fake does not meet the test, as volenti is available to everybody, including fake christians. That, I think, is the problem here: we decide if somebody has rights based on whether we like him or not. That's not my approach.

I maintain that slapping is common in certain deliverance circles in Nigeria. People that submit to deliverance do so, presumably on that understanding. The presumption can be rebutted of course. But until that is the case, it stands. You're not making any effort to acknowledge that what matters is the normal way of doing things there, choosing to substitute with it, your idea of what should be acceptable standard in the society. Many 'civilized' people hate boxing and would want it banned. But so long as people are voluntarily submitting to it, with a proper understannding of what it entails, our "civilized" standards cannot replace the legal standard. And how do you know that the bishop slapped her in anger or that boxers that successfully use the defense do not hit their opponents in anger? In fact, one successful boxer attributed his success on the ring to anger - he sees every opponent as his father that deserted the family while he was young. Do you also withdraw the defense from him here?

I spoke to somebody today who's adamtantly opposed to the slap, but who also acknowledged that it is a practice often seen in deliverance sessions in Nigeria. She also said she'd have had no problem with it if the victim was not a young girl or if she was delivered eventually. So, there you have it: the kind of things that a judge would look at, not whether or not we like Oyedepo and his ministry.

If you're so inclined, I'd also appreciate an answer to the gunshot example I gave a few posts earlier.

Before I read further ---- I want to point one thing out: to you, Wikipedia may "beat" my opinion on the law.

To me, when I am working with the law, I will not even look at Wikipedia and I will go as far as boasting that my expertise on many issues of law far exceeds what you will see in Wikipedia. I am just not interested in displaying it on this Board.

I will now read the rest of your post

Let's not let wikipedia distract us. A quick search of US decisions shows wikipedia in over 600 cases dealing with a variety of issues and almost 4,000 law journal articles. Used approvingly or disapprovingly. That nobody who does serious research would rely on wikipedia is a trite fact. The point is that - and that accounts for its popularity worldwide - is that it is a quick source of information, which one can readily use or confirm with more authoritative sources. That your expertise exceeds that of wikipedia in some aspects of the law is not in question - I'm sure lots of people on this forum - including yours truly - can say the same about their fields. The fact remains that everybody's expertise is limited and one cannot use the fact that one is an expert in Topic B to discredit wikipedia entry on Topic D. Put succintly, you may be an expert on certain aspects of the law, but not necessarily the law of torts. Let's leave wikipedia and discuss the relevant issues.

nlMediator:

First of all, wikipedia is not perfect. Everybody knows that. But it is sometimes useful, as numerous citations to materials from wikipedia in reputable journals attest. We shouldn't throw it out, simply because of wikipedia. What we need to do is challenge what is wrong about it, which even wikipedia itself encourages. In any case, it certainly beats opinions that you and I are exchanging here, as wikipedia at least seeks to provide authorities for its conclusions. If we reject wikipedia outright, we should also reject every opinion here. And rely only on treatises, casebooks and the like. So, the reference to lawyer worth his salt not relying on wikipedia is unhelpful.

On the substance, nobody argues that volenti will automatically avail the bishop. What I have maintained is that it is a defense he can raise and if the facts favor him, he'll be fine. You dispute that, yet you have given no reason why it cannot avail him. Saying that his christianity is fake does not meet the test, as volenti is available to everybody, including fake christians. That, I think, is the problem here: we decide if somebody has rights based on whether we like him or not. That's not my approach.

I maintain that slapping is common in certain deliverance circles in Nigeria. People that submit to deliverance do so, presumably on that understanding. The presumption can be rebutted of course. But until that is the case, it stands. You're not making any effort to acknowledge that what matters is the normal way of doing things there, choosing to substitute with it, your idea of what should be acceptable standard in the society. Many 'civilized' people hate boxing and would want it banned. But so long as people are voluntarily submitting to it, with a proper understannding of what it entails, our "civilized" standards cannot replace the legal standard. And how do you know that the bishop slapped her in anger or that boxers that successfully use the defense do not hit their opponents in anger? In fact, one successful boxer attributed his success on the ring to anger - he sees every opponent as his father that deserted the family while he was young. Do you also withdraw the defense from him here?

I spoke to somebody today who's adamtantly opposed to the slap, but who also acknowledged that it is a practice often seen in deliverance sessions in Nigeria. She also said she'd have had no problem with it if the victim was not a young girl or if she was delivered eventually. So, there you have it: the kind of things that a judge would look at, not whether or not we like Oyedepo and his ministry.

If you're so inclined, I'd also appreciate an answer to the gunshot example I gave a few posts earlier.

First, I notice now that your initial near certainty ("the girl is likely to lose" that volenti will avail the bishop has reduced considerably: I am not surprised because as I had indicated, a careful examination of the parameters within which the defence of volenti applies would not lend itself to that initial presupposition.

Second, I would point out that for the properly trained lawyer relying on statements of general principle in Wikipedia just does not cut it. I work with the primary materials: the very treatises, cases, law reports (NOT even casebooks as you think) that you refer to.

I will also point out that you are claiming I have not given explanations but it seems you are not reading my posts carefully enough. In my posts I have summarised why volenti would not avail. In fact, even if all you read carefully is the quote from the same Wikipedia in my post #98, especially the bits I bolded for you, you will see why volenti will not avail. If you read the material carefully, you will see what is required to show that the victim consented in the first place ----- and you will be hard pressed to fit the girl's supposed/alleged consent into that. No competent court will be hoodwinked into accepting that a girl who simply accepts an invitation to come on stage even for "deliverance" has consented to being slapped even as part of an alleged "deliverance" let alone when evidence of the video is clear that the slap was out of sheer annoyance and lack of self-control. See the reference in the Wikipedia quote to "nature" and "extent" and tell us the last time that a person who went on stage for "deliverance" was slapped in the manner done by the shamelessly intemperate pastor.

In addition, I pointed you to the boxing example but your response on that point is a very good indication that you have not got the whole point. It is not about the civilisation or otherwise of boxing or banning it or not: rather, the point is that even in a boxing contest, one of the boxers will not be able to rely on the defence of volenti, despite mutual consent to the contest, if he inflicts harm on the opponent outside the confines of the rules of the game.

Also, while volenti is a general defence in tort it is generally more apt in the context of negligence (hence its application by the courts is affected by the operation of contributory negligence) and it is less apt and less likely to be successful in contexts of wilful conduct. This is where knowledge and understanding of primary authorities help over and above merely reading general principles in a place like Wikipedia, In one of the primary authorities, one person struck another on the face during a football match --- it was not enough to say such things happen during a football match and the other chap had consented when it was proven that the striking was wilful conduct.

I could go on but I am going to stop very deliberately. I have already gone far far far longer than I ever planned or wanted to.

I will suggest we end on the same note as I had suggested previously. You are welcome to maintain the view that volenti will avail the pastor in this case. I will stick to the view that volenti will not avail the pastor on the known facts.  

nlMediator:

Let's not let wikipedia distract us. A quick search of US decisions shows wikipedia in over 600 cases dealing with a variety of issues and almost 4,000 law journal articles. Used approvingly or disapprovingly. That nobody who does serious research would rely on wikipedia is a trite fact. The point is that - and that accounts for its popularity worldwide - is that it is a quick source of information, which one can readily use or confirm with more authoritative sources. That your expertise exceeds that of wikipedia in some aspects of the law is not in question - I'm sure lots of people on this forum - including yours truly - can say the same about their fields. The fact remains that everybody's expertise is limited and one cannot use the fact that one is an expert in Topic B to discredit wikipedia entry on Topic D. Put succintly, you may be an expert on certain aspects of the law, but not necessarily the law of torts. Let's leave wikipedia and discuss the relevant issues.

I must repeat that while I can understand you saying that for you Wikipedia beats my opinion ---- I cannot let it slide and allow it to be assumed that I accept that Wikipedia even matches my expertise let alone surpass it on quite a number of issues of law. Also, if I need to address or research an issue of law, Wikipedia willl not be anywhere near my expertise at the end of my look into the issue. It is as simple as that ---- to accept anything else is a very serious professional slur.

Enigma:

First, I notice now that your initial near certainty ("the girl is likely to lose" that volenti will avail the bishop has reduced considerably: I am not surprised because as I had indicated, a careful examination of the parameters within which the defence of volenti applies would not lend itself to that initial presupposition.

Second, I would point out that for the properly trained lawyer relying on statements of general principle in Wikipedia just does not cut it. I work with the primary materials: the very treatises, cases, law reports (NOT even casebooks as you think) that you refer to.

I will also point out that you are claiming I have not given explanations but it seems you are not reading my posts carefully enough. In my posts I have summarised why volenti would not avail. In fact, even if all you read carefully is the quote from the same Wikipedia in my post #98, especially the bits I bolded for you, you will see why volenti will not avail. If you read the material carefully, you will see what is required to show that the victim consented in the first place ----- and you will be hard pressed to fit the girl's supposed/alleged consent into that. No competent court will be hoodwinked into accepting that a girl who simply accepts an invitation to come on stage even for "deliverance" has consented to being slapped even as part of an alleged "deliverance" let alone when evidence of the video is clear that the slap was out of sheer annoyance and lack of self-control. See the reference in the Wikipedia quote to "nature" and "extent" and tell us the last time that a person who went on stage for "deliverance" was slapped in the manner done by the shamelessly intemperate pastor.

In addition, I pointed you to the boxing example but your response on that point is a very good indication that you have not got the whole point. It is not about the civilisation or otherwise of boxing or banning it or not: rather, the point is that even in a boxing contest, one of the boxers will not be able to rely on the defence of volenti, despite mutual consent to the contest, if he inflicts harm on the opponent outside the confines of the rules of the game.

Also, while volenti is a general defence in tort it is generally more apt in the context of negligence (hence its application by the courts is affected by the operation of contributory negligence) and it is less apt and less likely to be successful in contexts of wilful conduct. This is where knowledge and understanding of primary authorities help over and above merely reading general principles in a place like Wikipedia, In one of the primary authorities, one person struck another on the face during a football match --- it was not enough to say such things happen during a football match and the other chap had consented when it was proven that the striking was wilful conduct.

I could go on but I am going to stop very deliberately. I have already gone far far far longer than I ever planned or wanted to.

I will suggest we end on the same note as I had suggested previously. You are welcome to maintain the view that volenti will avail the pastor in this case. I will stick to the view that volenti will not avail the pastor on the known facts.

Sure, we can end it on that note. 2 quick things though. In my very fitst post, I said that no one can be 100% sure of the outcome. I see you omitted that portion of my post and quoted the "likely lose" part. I wouldn't accuse you of not carefully reading my post, but it is instructive to note it. My position has not shifted one bit. Even Bishop Oyedepo's lawyers cannot give him any assurance that they would win - that's professional misconduct as you very well know. Second, volenti is more suitable and more forceful in negligence cases. But where the case does not involve negligence, a defendant certainly is not expected to fold his hands and wish his case were one of negligence. The bullet proof example I gave you is certainly not one of negligence. For some reason, you wouldn't comment on it.

^^^ What bullet proof example are you talking about for goodness sake?

Addendum:


It is OK if your position has not shifted a bit --- that is not my business at all. My concern is to avoid leaving anyone reading the thread with the wrong impression of the law.

And for that I maintain that the girl's so-called "consent" can not be fit within the parameters to avail the slap-happy* "pastor" of the defence of volenti on proper analysis.



* Reminds me of Slap Harrys in London many years back. 

Enigma:

I must repeat that while I can understand you saying that for you Wikipedia beats my opinion ---- I cannot let it slide and allow it to be assumed that I accept that Wikipedia even matches my expertise let alone surpass it on quite a number of issues of law. Also, if I need to address or research an issue of law, Wikipedia willl not be anywhere near my expertise at the end of my look into the issue. It is as simple as that ---- to accept anything else is a very serious professional slur.

I think we're talking past each other on wikipedia. Nobody said that wikipedia beats your opinion on every issue. What you do not contest is that it beats it in some areas of law outside of your expertise, which is my claim. There's a reason why wikipedia is one of the 3 or so most visited sites on the internet. It contains some useful, albeit, non-authoritative information. And like I mentioned earlier,  wikipedia sources featured in 600 reported cases on westlaw. Certainly all the people making references - for good or bad - are not dummies. You're free to believe that your approach beats that of the thousands of lawyers involved in those cases and the authors of 4000 law journal articles, including in the Yale Law Journal and Harvard Law Review, but I'd not quarrel with that. After all, it works well for you. And so do the different approaches employed by other scholars and practitioners. And since you keep on going back on this expertise and mode of work, I'm pretty sure that I have done far more research and writing than you have and the evidence is out there for all to see.

Enigma:

^^^ What bullet proof example are you talking about for goodness sake?

It's on Post #96. Sorry, didn't pinpoint earlier.

You are pushing me quite a bit with this Wikipedia issue and it is beginning to annoy me. You do not know my expertise and you do not know my expertise on Tort law {I came very close to saying but I will not}. As I said, if you say Wikipedia beats my opinion that is fine. Just do not expect me to acquiesce in what to me is sheer nonsense --- after all I have read the Wikipedia entry you are talking about!

Reading post 96, your point about gun and bullet proof was not directed to me and I had not paid any attention to it. I would say in response to your query: (a) apply the information you get from your Wikipedia to it and form a conclusion; (b) compare the situation with that of a girl who accepts an invitation to come on stage ----- point to how many times and the last time that we know of that a person who similarly accepted such an invitation in similar circumstances was slapped on stage by an intemperate "pastor" ---- and tell a judge that the girl consented to being slapped on stage. EDIT Oh by the way also tell the judge that it says so in Wikipedia!

No need for showing thin skin. This is a mere internet exchange and not much is at stake. The bullet example was not addressed to you initially but I later asked you to comment on it. I can see you're non-committal on that. That's good enough for me. Since what's not stated is often more important than what's said. I'm pretty sure you're not an expert in tort law. You can disprove it by telling me how many publications you have on the subject in reputable journals, especially in recent years. I also hope you do not take this is a personal attack. Only that you do not expect me to accept your claim to expertise simply because you said so. We demand more even from wikipedia writers.

Thin skinned! After I endured the insolence of your first three or so posts without replying in kind.

Nah, I won't waste my time on your bullet proof example --- use your Wikipedia on it.

If you think I'm afraid to address it, that is fine. Water off a duck's back.

Oh , I overlook you were asking for my expertise in Tort law --- and you do not realise that it is daft to expect me to answer it?

Nah, there is no need for me to go that far all because of the actions of one wolf in sheep clothing that calls himself a pastor using the gospel as a means of financial gain. Not worth it.

Now, I already deeply regret not confining my comment simply to my first post which had adequately covered the issue anyway. I know better not to waste my time with you next time.

No insult was intended. I don't see what I stand to gain from insulting anybody on a faceless forum. Sometimes, we express our views in different ways that may come across the wrong way. What baffles me is that some of you take these forums way too seriously. On a different note, I just opened my email and read a piece from a Nigerian lawyer, trained in the UK, that made essentially the same points I have been making. While the post was written and sent to the discussion group on Dec. 19, I just saw it. Of course, it does not prove much, but it sure tells us something about people analyzing the issue dispassionately. Especially since this lawyer, as far as I know, is not even a christian. That sure helps.

Enigma:

Oh , I overlook you were asking for my expertise in Tort law --- and you do not realise that it is daft to expect me to answer it?

Nah, there is no need for me to go that far all because of the actions of one wolf in sheep clothing that calls himself a pastor using the gospel as a means of financial gain. Not worth it.

Now, I already deeply regret not confining my comment simply to my first post which had adequately covered the issue anyway. I know better not to waste my time with you next time.

Thanks for the lovely and loving comments. I do not consider the exchange a waste of time. I'm always open to learning. And tried very heard to learn something new on volenti from you, but it did not happen. There's nothing daft about my question. International Law is not the same as tort law.

If na her parent slap her she go sue them? She said am a witch for Jesus, and almost arguing, pls let's stop talking as if we didn't grow up in this same Nigeria where every adult raises a child either na them born am or not, it's part of our culture and we all still grow up to be responsible adults we all grow up with slaps here and there from mum, dad, neighbors, family friends even friends at times if dem know say you no fit fight lol, And we still grow up to love our parents, which kind sue?

The society has degenerated to the extent that even witches are so free to say whatever they like in the name of fundamental human (witches?) right.
The slaps and blows we receive from the politicians today are unprecedented anywhere in the world, resources are being unfairly shared, lives and destinies are being wasted ( before, during and after) ; while we find it difficult to rise up to challenge these pilferers effectively,we waste Nairaland pages discussing how to deal with a bishop for slapping a witch.

The society has degenerated to the extent that even witches are so free to say whatever they like in the name of fundamental human (witches?) right.
The slaps and blows we receive from the politicians today are unprecedented anywhere in the world, resources are being unfairly shared, lives and destinies are being wasted ( before, during and after ELECTION) ; while we find it difficult to rise up to challenge these pilferers effectively,we waste Nairaland pages discussing how to deal with a bishop for slapping a witch.

^^ Sure the society has degenerated --- that is why an idiotic bully like the pastor can get away with slapping defenceless people in the manner shown in that video.

By the way, who says the girl was a witch?

nlMediator:

My brother, you're misrepresenting my position. I didn't say that being assaulted is to be expected in seeking spiritual help. This is not about spiritual help in generic terms, but a particular kind of spiritual help, namely deliverance. I've seen a number of deliverance sessions and things get rough sometimes. Even here on this forum, we've read of people being asked to expose their bosoms with pus oozing, rolling on dirt, etc. If people know that that's how things are done and voluntarily submit themsleves to that, they have no remedy in law. Now, there may be certain practices that cross the line and the perpetrator will be culpable as no reasonable person would be deemed to have consented, but that's not what I'm reading here: some of you seem to suggest that normal rules on assault apply all the time, thereby nullifying the volenti defense. If you have a moment, could you respond to this question: a guy goes to a native doctor to prepare a charm to make him bullet-proof. To test the charm, the native doctor shoots a gun at the guy, killing him. Do you think the victim's family can successfully sue? I'd appreciate your answer.

Your example seems to be a clear case of manslaughter and therefore a criminal offence that the native doctor can be jailed for. I'll admit I don't know how the civil case will be decided as the victim must have consented to the gun shot test.

Clearly the girl above did not consent to being slapped. You can see that she was shocked. People ASKED to expose their bosoms have the option to refuse. The girl was not asked whether she wanted to receive a hot slap! We have to agree to disagree here. I would class myself as a reasonable person and if I go up for any deliverance (which I would never do), I wouldn't expect to receive a slap.

Claus:
. . . .
Clearly the girl above did not consent to being slapped. You can see that she was shocked. People ASKED to expose their bosoms have the option to refuse. The girl was not asked whether she wanted to receive a hot slap! We have to agree to disagree here. I would class myself as a reasonable person and if I go up for any deliverance (which I would never do), I wouldn't expect to receive a slap.

There is no way that a competent court of law will hold that the girl had consented to being slapped from what we have seen on that video. This was not a 'private' "deliverance" session or a pre-arranged session for example in the mode of the so-called "Healing School" of CEC. This was a public gathering attended without preconditions by ordinary members of the public. The so-called 'consent' of the girl is being inferred from her act of voluntarily going on stage. There is no way that a competent court of law will hold that voluntarily going on stage even supposedly for 'deliverance' amounts to consent to being slapped. Basically, that is saying that any of those persons on stage in that video had consented to being slapped by Oyedepo. It is also saying that if you go to a crusade, Night Vigil, 'Holy Ghost Night' and you agree to go on stage or answer an "altar call" at the invitation of the minister even for supposed deliverance you consent to being slapped.

It is from a layman's perspective that you get the view that once a person exposes himself to possible harm then he cannot make a claim. From a lawyer's point of view, you are working within a far narrower framework which the courts have laid down. Just to take a couple of examples without belabouring the point: effectively, whether expressly or impliedly the girl must have consented specifically to being slapped {full knowledge of 'nature' and 'extent' required}; it is not enough to say that the deliverance sessions of the particular church or 'pastor' can get violent; even assuming we say the girl 'consented', the 'consent' is likely to be vitiated as not being voluntary because of the nature of her position vis a vis Oyedepo - one of those relationships of trust, this time between a rather lowly person (possibly even a minor) and a supposed minister of religion. 

Really, what Oyedepo did was an abuse of office and no way a competent court will allow him to raise a defence of assumption of risk or volenti to get away with that.

The legality of slapping a person that's simply a non issue, irrespective of our perceived norms, values and cultural permutations.

I would rather consider the issue from a God perspective using the infallible mediator the word of God. I don't ever recall in scripture Jesus having to slap anybody in the name of deliverance.

The question is raised immediately from a strict Biblical definition, what is Christian deliverance and i do not mean the widely accepted, practised and preached Naija churchality deliverance ?

The Bible tells us,"by their fruits we shall know them" (Matt.7.16) also consider Galatians 5.23, "gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. "

NUFF SAID

^^^ You are right --- I guess the legal back brouhaha is because of the thread title. But on your point I also pointed out the below yesterday. God help us all. 


2 Timothy 3:1-5 

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.  People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,  without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,  treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—  having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

n., pl., acts of God.
A manifestation especially of a violent or destructive natural force, such as a lightning strike or earthquake, that is beyond human power to cause, prevent, or control.

In the law of contracts, an act of God may be interpreted as an implied defence under the rule of impossibility or impracticability. If so, the promise is discharged because of unforeseen occurrences, which were unavoidable and would result in insurmountable delay, expense, or other material breach.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/act-of-god#ixzz1hMQ9qMR7

The Slap was an “Act of God” I came about this conclusion after reading the intricacies, intrigueness and the banality if not the vagueness or the ambiguity of this ‘ACT’.

My conclusion- it was an ‘ AOG’ If the good people, both ladies and gentlemen on this forum watched that video again, you would notice what the lady said after she was slapped was even worse than what she said before she was slapped.

The first slap was an involuntary action that can only be attested or pilloried down as an ‘AOG’, after the man of God regained his, consciouness, composure from the what I call a retrun from the spiritual realm, despite the annoying and blasphemous disposition of the lady, the man of God exercised inflamed and uncontrollable restrain and should be commended rather than persecuted.

I think there lies our answer to this difficult question?

Claus:

Your example seems to be a clear case of manslaughter and therefore a criminal offence that the native doctor can be jailed for. I'll admit I don't know how the civil case will be decided as the victim must have consented to the gun shot test.

Clearly the girl above did not consent to being slapped. You can see that she was shocked. People ASKED to expose their bosoms have the option to refuse. The girl was not asked whether she wanted to receive a hot slap! We have to agree to disagree here. I would class myself as a reasonable person and if I go up for any deliverance (which I would never do), I wouldn't expect to receive a slap.

Thanks for your response. From the bolded, I see a different and better attitude from your initial response, which was to dismiss some of us as going off the deep end, so much so that it is impossible to have a reasoned dialogue on the issue. It may interest you that a court has made a decision on a case with similar facts to the bullet-proof example I gave. Certainly, the court could have argued that the victim consented to being tested but did not consent to being killed. But it did not. When you consent to certain things, you consent to some other things that logically flow or follow from it. You may have the option of exposing your bosom or not but when you are under pressure in public, that option is not really an option, even in the eyes of the law. And when you're rolling on the floor, smeared with other people's vomit, it sure does not look like what you would opt for. Certainly, you're a reasonable man and would not submit to some of these things. But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do. In fact, much of what we do in Christianity - including simple prayer - is considered unreasonable by many reasonable people. As one who has spent a lot of time with the "intellectual types", I know that for a fact.

KnowAll:


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/act-of-god#ixzz1hMQ9qMR7



The Slap was an “Act of God” I came about this conclusion after reading the intricacies, intrigueness and the banality if not the vagueness or the ambiguity of this ‘ACT’.

My conclusion- it was an ‘ AOG’ If the good people, both ladies and gentlemen on this forum watched that video again, you would notice what the lady said after she was slapped was even worse than what she said before she was slapped.

The first slap was an involuntary action that can only be attested or pilloried down as an ‘AOG’, after the man of God regained his, consciouness, composure from the what I call a retrun from the spiritual realm, despite the annoying and blasphemous disposition of the lady, the man of God exercised inflamed and uncontrollable restrain and should be commended rather than persecuted.

I think there lies our answer to this difficult question?

Naagh, you don't have the final answer yet! You haven't cross-checked or confirmed it with Wikipedia.

Enigma:

There is no way that a competent court of law will hold that the girl had consented to being slapped from what we have seen on that video. This was not a 'private' "deliverance" session or a pre-arranged session for example in the mode of the so-called "Healing School" of CEC. This was a public gathering attended without preconditions by ordinary members of the public. The so-called 'consent' of the girl is being inferred from her act of voluntarily going on stage. There is no way that a competent court of law will hold that voluntarily going on stage even supposedly for 'deliverance' amounts to consent to being slapped. Basically, that is saying that any of those persons on stage in that video had consented to being slapped by Oyedepo. It is also saying that if you go to a crusade, Night Vigil, 'Holy Ghost Night' and you agree to go on stage or answer an "altar call" at the invitation of the minister even for supposed deliverance you consent to being slapped.

It is from a layman's perspective that you get the view that once a person exposes himself to possible harm then he cannot make a claim. From a lawyer's point of view, you are working within a far narrower framework which the courts have laid down. Just to take a couple of examples without belabouring the point: effectively, whether expressly or impliedly the girl must have consented specifically to being slapped {full knowledge of 'nature' and 'extent' required}; it is not enough to say that the deliverance sessions of the particular church or 'pastor' can get violent; even assuming we say the girl 'consented', the 'consent' is likely to be vitiated as not being voluntary because of the nature of her position vis a vis Oyedepo - one of those relationships of trust, this time between a rather lowly person (possibly even a minor) and a supposed minister of religion.  

Really, what Oyedepo did was an abuse of office and no way a competent court will allow him to raise a defence of assumption of risk or volenti to get away with that.

I'd urge that a little humility goes a long way. Not even the best lawyers out there - effecting real change outside internet forums - can declare with such certainty what a court would do. It's like declaring that there's no way a court would declare a particular candidate elected when he was not on the ballot. Yet the Nigerian supreme court did it in the case of Rotimi Amaechi. When lawyers spend much of their professional energy arguing with fellow (accomplished) lawyers and staying current in the production of scholarship in their field, they are likely to be more circumspect in staking legal positions. The more you write, the more I wonder. And this is not an insult.

And please give it a rest. Not one person has argued here that if a person puts himself in a position of harm, he loses the ability or opportunity to make a claim. If you have to rely on such strawmen, it shows the weakness of your position.

Finally, as I stated earlier, a lawyer has argued convincingly, in my view, that the case may not turn out in the girl's favor. That lawyer, with his level of experience, is qualified to sit on the bench. How can anybody be sure that he would not rule the same way if he was handling this case as a judge?

Enigma:

Naagh, you don't have the final answer yet! You haven't cross-checked or confirmed it with Wikipedia.

Here we go again with wikipedia! What I find interesting is that if a smart fellow like you would conduct research on a legal topic you're working on for a client, consulting treatises and primary sources for that particular matter and then deciding afterwards to dump the information on wikipedia, it would be ludicrous to dismiss the work simply because it appeared on wikipedia. But that's exactly what you're doing. I never knew I'd defend wikipedia to this extent, but when you make it appear that the writers there are people with little knowledge, when you have zero proof for such assertion, a defense is compelled.