₦airaland Forum

^^^ Well, according to news reports, he did just that! 

http://mobile.saharareporters.com/news-page/%E2%80%9Ci-will-slap-again%E2%80%9D-bishop-oyedepo-brags-first-public-response-internet-outrage-over-assau

Bishop David Oyedepo, the founder and president of the Living Faith Church, also known as Winners Chapel, today in Ota reacted in his sermon to the spreading video that showed his scandalous slapping of a worshipper during a 'deliverance' drama at his church.

"People now complain on the Internet that I slapped a witch.  If I see another one, I'll slap," said the Bishop, who has become the butt of many jokes since the video was published.

Still, he bragged today, "It is my ministry to slap!"

Bishop Oyedepo, who is seen on the video slapping the young lady for describing herself as a “witch for Christ,” then said of himself, “I am a Baba witch myself.”

He did not explain what he meant, nor did he slap himself.

So, is he now cut down, cut down?

^^^ Ah, nna bros I want ask: now that Oyedepo has called himself "baba witch" (as we read), is he any different from the girl who called herself "witch for Jesus"? Should someone now slap Oyedepo for calling himself a witch when he is supposed to be a "servant" of Jesus? Does Jesus have any "baba witches"? If Oyedepo slapped the girl because, as he told her, Jesus has no witches -- why then is Oyedepo calling himself a witch?

Is Oyedepo too "cut down" for calling himself a "baba witch"?

Did they take the guy to Oyedepo for slapping?

Looku and laughu ---- laughu and looku! 


[flash=400,300]http://youtube.com/v/iYovsqoMQoQ[/flash]

. . . . . .
According to materialists, science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry.

And anything that cannot be thus explained can be dismissed as illusory.

Educated in this tradition, I adopted the standard dismissive attitude when the subject of telepathy came up in the laboratory tearoom one day.

I was gently taken to task by Sir Rudolph Peters, one of the doyens of British biochemistry. He was a kindly man with twinkly eyes and more curiosity than most people half his age.

He told me of an ophthalmologist friend who had a severely disabled and mentally r.etarded young boy as a patient.

Although he was almost blind, he seemed able to read the letters on the optician’s chart very well, but only when his mother was looking at them.

The only explanation appeared to be some form of telepathic communication between the two, and in 1968 Sir Rudolph conducted an experiment in which the boy correctly guessed many of the written numbers or words shown to his mother, even though they were sitting on either side of a screen which prevented him from picking up any visual or auditory cues.

Sir Rudolph concluded that this telepathy had developed to an unusual degree because of the boy’s extreme needs and his mother’s desire to help him.

But, as I discovered, even laboratory experiments involving strangers had produced results which, if less marked, were still compelling.

For example, the years between 1880 and 1939 saw something of a boom in early psychical research, with the publication of more than 186 studies involving trials in which subjects guessed which randomly selected cards a ‘sender’ was looking at.

When the four million individual results were combined in a statistical procedure called meta-analysis, the overall results were hugely significant because they were considerably more accurate than would have been expected from random chance.

Later experiments during the Seventies involved subjects sleeping in a soundproofed laboratory while a ‘sender’ in another room, and in some cases another building, opened a sealed package containing a randomly selected picture and concentrated on it, trying to influence the subject’s dream.

Sometimes the thought transference was very clear: one subject described having dreamed about buying tickets for a prize fight while the sender was looking at a picture of a boxing match.

Occasionally, it was more symbolic, as when the subject dreamed of a dead rat in a cigar box while the sender was looking at a picture of a dead gangster in a coffin. But in 450 such trials the overall results were very significantly above the chance level.

My research has included more than 4,000 cases of psychic phenomena. Many, like Mona Miller’s near-miss in the Blitz, involve mothers.

Hundreds told me that during the months they were breastfeeding, they’d know when their baby needed them, even from miles away, because they began secreting br.east milk.

With the help of a midwife, I studied nine nursing mothers in North London during a two-month period, and found that their unexpected ‘let-downs’ of milk when they were separated from their babies very often coincided with their infants experiencing distress.

The odds against this occurring by chance as often as it did were a billion to one, and this telepathic connection makes good evolutionary sense.

Mothers who could tell at a distance when their babies were unhappy would tend to have babies that survived better than those of insensitive mothers.

Such connections often seem to continue even when the children have grown up, with many stories on my database concerning mothers who had an urge to get in touch with their children when they could not have known by any conventional means that they were in trouble.

Many would do so by telephone, the method of communication most commonly mentioned in reports of telepathic experiences in general.

Many people told me they had thought of someone for no apparent reason, and then that person rang in a way that seemed uncanny. Or they knew who was calling when the phone rang, even before they picked up the receiver.

I designed an experiment to test this, a simplified version of which you can try through my website.

This involved asking subjects for the names and phone numbers of four friends or family members before placing them alone in a room with a landline telephone with no caller ID.

I then selected one of the four callers at random and asked them to phone the subject, who had to say who was on the line before answering.

By guessing at random, subjects would have been right about one time in four, or 25 per cent.

In fact, the average hit rate was 45 per cent, very significantly above the level of chance, and these results have been replicated independently at universities in Germany and Holland.

In attempting to explain such phenomena, we need to look far beyond the traditional scientific view that everything is essentially material or physical, including the human mind.

. . . . .

Full monty:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083279/Psychic-powers-How-thought-premonitions-telepathy-common-think.html#ixzz1il1wfNAa

^^^ Obviously, it's way above "your head". 

1. How does it make sense that Jesus would say of those killing him:"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"?

2. How does it make sense that Jesus would admonish Peter for cutting off the ear of one of those who came to "capture" Jesus; and also that Jesus would heal the chap by fixing his ear?

3. How does it make sense that Jesus says you should forgive "70x7" times?

4. How does it make sense that Jesus said you should bless those that curse you?


Ah, perhaps there is a way that is higher than man's "rational" ways!


One interesting thing is that those fond of criticising the "Bible God" can't make up their minds: they say the God of the Bible is wicked and barbaric by allowing for revenge etc in the OT.  Here we have somebody demonstrating that this same God of the Bible is a God of love who says revenge is not necessary or even desirable ---- yet our friends still can't handle it.

Further, a couple of posters have explained briefly the simple yet somewhat complex principle that Christians can indeed forgive the perpetrators of crime without preventing the law from taking its course --- e.g. through prosecution and/or conviction of the perpetrators.

Finally, I wonder if this statement about forgiving the perpetrators had been made by a Hare Krishna leader or leader of one of the Eastern religions, if the opponents of Christianity would not have regarded it as how those religions are "superior" to Christianity.

Interesting: it seems many (perhaps more and more) people are coming to the view that God is "telling" these so-called MOGs llareggub!

Congratulations to Joagbaje. Thanks to everyone who nominated and/or voted for me.

For my own reasons, I did not nominate anyone or even vote for that matter.

Happy new year to one and all ---- and especially my atheist friends.

@ samyng

I am sorry, you really did not answer my question. Let me try again:

OK I have heard your exhortation to respect "anointed men of God" and also the church.

My question again though is this: what would you advise me as a Christian about whether it is right or Christ-like for "an anointed man of God" to slap a poor person even when the poor person says she is a witch for Jesus?

Remember, this is not about speaking evil of the man of god or of the church, this is simply about understanding what is Christ-like and biblically right. 

^^^ Will you also encourage or advise Christians to spread the message that it is not right and it is not Christ-like for "anointed men of God" to be slapping poor people all over the place even if they say they are "witch for Jesus"?

Image123:

1. Was the girl a witch?

I don't know, i'm not omniscient, neither do i have a 'gift' of knowing witches. Two things that i know are that firstly the girl consistently and defiantly said that she was a witch, also she came out with other 'witches' when when they were told to come out. . . . . .

If you noticed, the conversation was not a "are you a witch?" one but a "you've been there for how long?" conversation. Prior to that, witches were told to come out and she came out with those others seen kneeling. Secondly, i know that the girl was a sinner. If she's lying that she's a witch, she's a sinner because liars are sinners. If she's not lying, she's still a sinner because witches are sinners.  . . . . . .

Do you see that picture that Jenifa posted (Post 404)? The white banner clearly says "We Are NOT WITCHES". Oyedepo's video clearly shows a girl saying "I AM A WITCH FOR JESUS. MY OWN WITCH IS FOR JESUS, I'M WITCH FOR JESUS". Ir say that about three times, not to count what she mumbled when the mic wasn't close. Is it possible for you to spot the difference?

First, this is not fair and two there are problems or questions arising.

1. Even if the girl said she is a "witch for Jesus", we cannot ignore the fact that she also said "I am NOT a witch". So how do we properly understand what the girl meant? The girl should have been given a chance to explain herself rather than being slapped in anger of hasty conclusion; the fact is without further explanation by the girl, we do not really know what she meant --- as she consistently and repeatedly said "I am NOT a witch".

2. The statement that she came out with other "witches" is also unfair (also remember you said you don't know whether she is a witch). First let me ask you: the boy who also came out and said he was having 's.exual thoughts', so that one too is a "witch' or wizard ni because he came out on stage? Second, just about the time that Oyedepo slapped this particular girl, we saw one of the ushers bringing another very young girl of about age ten to the stage, right of the slapped girl; was that girl also a witch?  {And this also raises the point of how voluntary did every one come out to the stage or were they cajoled or manipulated ---- especially that very little girl I've just mentioned?}

3. Who knows exactly what question Oyedepo asked or what call he made that made those people come out for "deliverance"? Considering that one boy came out for deliverance from 's.exual thoughts' (and we have no reason to say he was a "witch", it is at least possible that the call was for anyone who needs "deliverance" from different kinds of affliction (not necessarily only being a "witch" to come out on stage.

4. Consider the following, a person says s/he is

- "crazy" for Jesus; next thing SLAP! S/he needs "deliverance" from demon of "craze"!
- a Jesus "freak"; next thing SLAP! S/he needs "deliverance" from demon of ashawo or other "freakness"!
- some "Christian" musicians call themselves "Gospel Gangstaz"; they need SLAP and "deliverance" from "gangstardom"!

aletheia:
^
My, how you do like man-made labels. . ."Calvinist"? Why tie yourself up in knots?   I believe those labels prevent you from seeing beyond your preconceived notions.

Of course the soul that sins will die. That is the judgment pronounced on all men. . .for all have sinned.

But
. . .I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
[Rom 1:16-17]

The last six words in the verse above are as OT as the one in your post above.

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. [Rom 10:3]

^^^ And with these we begin to head in the direction of being able to unlock Jesus' statement 'except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees . . . .'

In terms of "fastidiousness", whose "righteousness" can exceed that of the Pharisees? And in terms of "holiness" who is really "holy" (except in the sense of being set apart)?

Of course, the righteousness that exceeds the "righteousness" of the Pharisees is the righteousness of Christ.

Again I say on my own authority that if a court finds that the defence of volenti avails the white washed sepulchre of a "pastor" on the known facts when the standard is the subjective test whether this particular victim poor girl consented to being slapped, then the court is incompetent for being unsound on the law or lacking integrity.

I say again, on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law, that if a court finds that the defence of volenti avails the slap-happy "pastor" on the basis that the girl consented (on the known facts), then the court is incompetent for being unsound on the law or lacking in integrity.

If a court finds consent to being slapped (by the wolf in sheep clothing of a pastor) on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law.

Claus:
. . .
Presumably the native doctor was not liable, in a civil case, because the victim consented to the gunshot test. Brings us full circle to the question of whether the "witch"

There is a simple explanation. In the Anglo-Nigerian system the trend has been that the defence of volenti is only likely to apply in the witch-doctor type of example. They are sometimes called the "near-suicidal-risk" cases ---- where the risk is so blatant yet the claimant agrees to it, indeed as exemplified by a person who agrees to be shot.

In cases like of the poor girl (labelled a "witch" the courts rarely find volenti as an acceptable defence and, in any event as I said much earlier, you'd be hard pushed to conclude that the girl in that video consented (expressly or impliedly) to being slapped.

Hmmm 

If a court finds consent to being slapped on the part of the girl in that video on the basis of known facts, then the court is incompetent being either unsound on the law or lacking integrity. QED

Said on my own authority as a person knowledgeable on the law. 

Claus:
. . . .
"But the applicable standard is not what "you" would do" I actually disagree with this since I am also a Christian that attended a ministry similar to Oyedepo's for about 8 years. So the "we" in "what we do in Christianity" would include me as well.

Interestingly, the courts do tend to apply a subjective standard and indeed the test would be what the particular victim would do. Clearly, this particular girl had not consented to being slapped ---- that is the key.

-----

Now a little digression and an exercise in "lawyer-speak": watch the effect of the little word "competent".

"There is no way that a competent* court will find consent" = "If a court finds consent, then the court is not competent*"

Yep and in this case this statement is maintained on my own authority as someone knowledgeable on the law.


*Competent meaning sound on the law and of integrity rather than simply properly constituted.

^^^Look, I have already left you to your Wikipedia hence I didn't bother to reply your last two posts.

All I know is that I am not about to cite Wikipedia before a law court very soon.

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.

^^^ 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.

^^^ That people slap commonly in Nigeria does not mean that it is acceptable! It has never been and it is not; the only problem is lack of practical redress ---- even though there are many options within the Nigerian system for legal redress.

You may not like this but I will use the late Abami Ẹda to show you that slapping was never acceptable in Naija.

1. Gba mi l'eti ki'n d'olowo (slap me and let me become rich i.e. from suing your backside)

2. Army man go slap you --- you go dey look like monkey!

I know say you fit brand me "worldly" for using Baba 70 --- but truth na truth.

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.

^^ 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?

, , , Ifa kan ko ma si ni para!

Ola

You have not included the link or is it coming up? I think I know the one and the guy is a mumu anyway.

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.

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.

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!

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. 

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