₦airaland Forum

Enigma:
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.

Joagbaje:
@NLmediator

Maybe that's why the family of Ananias and sapphira couldn't sue Peter for the death of their parents.

Claus:
What were the facts of that case and what was the court's final verdict (criminal or civil)?

The "reasonable" discussion stems from the explanations on the Wikipedia link that you pointed out. It's been highlighted because those are the considerations the legal world would apply, and it seems valid to discuss it based on the title of this thread.

"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.

Enigma:
^^^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?

Enigma:
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!

Enigma:
I had read the Wikipedia article; even a student studying Tort law for the first time can tell you that it is grossly inadequate on the topic --- if only for incompleteness.

I have also noticed that despite my deliberate attempt to be polite you have maintained this insolent attitude --- which I find both surprising and disappointing.

In that case: I will say now that on the facts that are in public knowledge and on the elements of the doctrine of 'volenti non fit injuria', the doctrine analytically does not avail the pastor in this case and a court will almost certainly throw it out.

I am not going to explain the doctrine for you I'm afraid. For that reason, you are free to continue presenting the viewpoint that the pastor has such a defence. I will continue to argue that the defence does not avail the pastor on the known facts.

Enigma:
I'm afraid I am in a position to say what is a true presentation of the law because I have quite a decent knowledge of Nigerian law as well as the law of other common law jurisdictions. I had deliberately tried to be soft in that post. The fact really is that what you said is inaccurate in law --- to be honest.

You have as much information on the facts as I do (unless you have some inside knowledge) and on those publicly known facts, you made a claim on the law but the fact is that your application of the law to the known facts is wrong. The parameters of application of 'volenti non fit injuria' were not presented accurately.

Outstrip:
You shouldn't have said with my little knowledge of law you should have said "with my total lack of knowledge of the law"

Barr rich:
There is so much to learn from this post as this is a very important exposition of the basic fundamentals of christianity which are in the Epistles of Paul. Let me share this.

According to the Bible, the purpose for Paul's call into the ministry was:

", to make thee a minister and a witness both of these same things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me". Acts 26:16-18.

A good study of the Pauline Epistles therefore will reveal to the Christian, basic doctrines of the Christian faith which will make him wise unto salvation.

1. How can a man be saved?

Paul teaches us in Rom 10:9-10, whereas if you look at the gospels you would not find any exposition on this subject. The closest to this is found in John where he tells us, ", as many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God".John 1:12-13.

So what does a man need to do to get this life?

Paul tells us: ", if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved. Rom 10:9.
He goes further to explain, "For with the heart man believeth unto rightousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation".Rom 10:10.

2. A good study of the Epistles of Paul will make the Christian understand certain basic doctrines of christianity like righteousness. You will understand righteousness in the old testament and righteousness in the New testament and get to understand that righteousness in the old testament was given as a post dated cheque which could not be spent until the coming of the messiah.

3. Similarly, the Christian will get to understand the place of the Jews in the plan of God, and what God is looking at now, the new creation, Gal 6:15, who he tells us is ", a life giving spirit, born after the 2nd Adam, 1 Cor 15:47-49.

There is so much that a Christian will get to understand on the finished works of Christ by diligently studying the Pauline Epistles. Paul himself was a very studious man as he was able to study the Books of the Law and relate them with the New Testament, which is actually the birth of the Church. ignoring or

So, there is no gainsaying in asserting that this post seeks to magnify the teachings of Paul above the teachings of Christ, but every Christian that really wants to grow to full maturity will need to get himself acquainted with the teachings of Apostle Paul as regards the new creation. No wonder, the Epistles of Apostle Paul make up about one third of the New Testament.

Joagbaje:
The primary way ministers were supported is through tithes and offerings to God. He doesn't have to mention first fruits because its an offering .If you say tithes is done away, then you're saying offering is done away also because they are based on the same principles of worshiping God by faith with our resouces. Do you believe in giving offering in church? Do you give offering to God?

You should understand that principles are eternal. Prayers, offerings,tithing, sowing,righteous living etc.are all based on spiritual laws and principles. They transcend dispensations, we cannot outgrow them. That's why certain things which are based on principles under the law are still applicable till now. E.g honouring your parents and living long. Sowing and reaping etc. Calling something foundational does not mean childish. The foundation is the principle which structures are built.

I don’t know if you if you realize you’re making my point and undermining yours. First, the question on this thread is not whether tithing is valid, but whether Paul preached it. Second, I’ve been consistently using ‘foundational’ in this discussion in the same sense you mentioned – as an important first step upon which other steps are built. Third, stating that tithing is dispensational means that you agree that this “deep truth” was revealed to others before Paul – the same point I’ve been making that God has been revealing deep truths way before Paul. All of these suggest that we can find the whole truth in the whole Bible, not by isolating one writer and claiming that he has all the revelation we need.

I find it interesting that you continue to link Paul to tithing. I’ve been in several churches and each time I’ve heard the tithe message preached, nobody has ever referred to Paul. It’s always to Genesis (Abram) and Malachi (and sometimes Leviticus). That you want to link Paul to it suggests you understand that for both your doctrine of tithes in the modern Church and your elevation of Paul to hold true, you must claim that Paul preached on tithes. But the questions you cannot answer are: If he wanted to talk about tithes, why not do what every writer on tithes have done – use the word “tithe”? Why bring it in indirectly, especially when Paul is well-known for being direct?

I don’t know why it is hard for you understand that God can abolish tithes without abolishing giving. Especially when the basis for God-instituted tithe (not the voluntary one) is clearly spelt out in the Bible (the levites did not inherit land) and God do away with the instruction when the same circumstances are no longer present. To answer your question directly, I believe in giving and so does Paul and my church.

I have my own question for you too: why did Jesus teach Kenneth Hagin about the believer’s authority by referencing the gospels and other writers besides Paul, when Paul alone would have been sufficient as the apostle to the gentiles?

newmi:
I read this and thought to share it. . .
PAUL’S OFFICE



Paul had no direct contact with Jesus before his experience on the Damascus Road. For all we can tell, this man was a complete stranger to the fellowship that gathered around Jesus before the crucifixion. Who ordered him, and how came he to be acknowledged by churchmen as an apostle on par with the Twelve? There is absolutely no mention of him in the gospels, even in Luke's Gospel, though he may have been in Jerusalem during the periods of Jesus’ ministry there. He must, as a student of Gamaliel the great Pharisee teacher, (or so Luke has him saying – Acts 22:3) have been informed of the events surrounding Jesus' arrest and execution. Our first knowledge of him is in the Acts when, during the martyrdom of Stephen, he stood by and held the garments of those who cast the stones. Paul (according to Luke) also confirms his participation in the event, in his defense before the Sanhedrin after being arrested in Jerusalem prior to his first imprisonment in Rome (Acts 22:30). But he was never in the company of Jesus (at least, there is no record of such), and had no association with the Twelve until after his experience on the Damascus Road. He was a complete stranger.

Jesus chose only twelve apostles and named them. Paul was not among them. Then he promised them that they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Their number therefore corresponds to the number of the tribes of Israel, and we have no indication that Jesus intended to add others. Of course, Judas' betrayal and demise left only eleven. Could Paul have seen himself as filling the vacancy? No, for he would surely have made that his claim. The fact is that the remaining eleven were instrumental in the selection of Matthias to fill this vacancy as even Luke informs us in The Acts, and had Paul seen himself as being Judas' replacement, Luke would certainly have seen him as such. I believe, nevertheless, that Paul was Judas's successor – as traitor! Judas betrayed him in his flesh; Paul betrayed him in his spirit.


A clue as to how Paul viewed his apostleship
Luke's account of the story of Paul's “revelation” in Acts 9 may give us our first clue as to how Paul conceived his apostleship and justified his claim to that high and exalted position in the fellowship of Jesus.
Having been blinded by the brilliant light outside the city of Damascus, he was led into the city where for three days he was without sight and neither ate nor drank. Then the Lord appeared to a disciple at Damascus, Ananias by name, and sent him to Paul that he might regain his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Ananias objected because he had heard of Paul's reputation as a persecutor of the followers of Jesus but the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel . . , " Now, since the twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus already occupied the ministry to the sons of Israel, Paul from the beginning must have seen his ministry as focused on the Gentiles, who were listed first in the heavenly vision to Ananias as recounted by Paul to Luke. Thus Paul, writing in the Galatian letter, recounts his version of a meeting with Peter, James and John in Jerusalem that concluded, according to Paul, with the agreement between them that they (Peter, James and John) would focus their ministry on the circumcised, whereas Paul and Barnabus would go to the Gentiles. Paul says of this meeting:

. . . when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7,.
In writing thus, has he not clearly defined his apostleship, with himself being the apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter and the others of the Twelve are the apostles to the twelve tribes of the circumcision?

Luke's Background and Relation to Paul
If Luke was a native of Psidian Antioch as David Smith supposes, then the sermon Paul preached there, related by Luke in Acts 13, may have been the very sermon that resulted in Luke's conversion to Jesus. His detailed account of the sermon suggests that he may even have recorded it in short hand as Paul preached, and certainly suggests that he was there and gave careful attention to what was said.
Luke was an uncircumcised Greek and likely was also one of the Gentile "God fearers" attached to the synagogue in Antioch. He was careful to provide clues placing him in the congregation that heard Paul's sermon. He has Paul introducing the sermon with the words,

Men of Israel, and you that fear God, listen . . ,
Then, at the conclusion of the sermon, Luke writes:
When the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to continue in the Grace of God.
We are then told that on the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God, but the sight of the multitude excited the Jews to jealousy so that they contradicted what Paul said. Luke's narrative continues:
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Isaiah 49:6). And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed (Acts 13:46-48).
A shiver moves down my spine as I realize that Luke may be describing his own conversion!

The Biblical Source of Paul’s Commission as Apostle:
Paul’s speech to the Jews at Antioch gives intimation of the source of his conviction of his office as Apostle to the Gentiles. He claims a calling that antedates the call of Jesus to the Twelve, as the light for the Gentiles quotation comes from Isaiah 49:6 (this is applied to Jesus in Luke 2:32) and Paul saw it as a special commission directed to him, and perhaps also to Barnabas. A further indication of this comes in Paul's account of his calling in Galatians where we read:
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . ,
This is again a reference to Isaiah 49, v. 2, where the prophet says,
The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name, and v. 5, The Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant . . ,
Isaiah 49 further explains Paul's ambition to go to Spain, in its promise to send him to the uttermost parts of the earth, which, in Paul's time, with its Pillars of Hercules, represented the uttermost parts. (Acts 13:47, Isaiah 49:6, repeated below)
Paul surely understood that this was a source of his commission. This shows up in other passages such as Philippians 2:16, where Paul writes of his expectation of being proud of the Philippian Christians on the Day of Christ, when it will be shown that he did not "labor in vain," an expression that harks back to Isaiah 49:4: But I said, "I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God." He seems to have taken this passage as a forewarning to do all in his power to see that his labors were not in vain.

We see this popping up again in I Corinthians, where he wrote:

Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation."
This quotation being, again, from Isaiah 49:8. Paul sees himself as the one called from the womb of his mother and hidden away in the Lord's quiver like a polished arrow (Isaiah 49:2). It is reasonable to suppose that Luke, the young convert, was so powerfully impressed by the words of Paul as to accept this as the authorization of Paul’s ministry from the very beginning of his (Luke's) experience with Jesus. There is no good reason to doubt that this was Paul's understanding of his office and apostleship. On this basis he surely saw his apostleship as antedating and therefore superior to that of the Twelve

Joagbaje:
God never did away with them. Paiul himself taught on it.

1 Corinthians 9:13-14
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.