Divorce abroad is Valid in India

Please read the Below judgement and see how unsrupulus members of the Family of the First Wife tried to Misuse the Laws to harass the innocent husband, they were almost successful in the evil intensions but for the good judgement and sensitivity of the Supreme court.

Members of the First Wife who were trying to falsely implicate the husband and his family members should be dealt with sternly and given an exemplary punishment so that nobody  else dare to misuse the laws to take revenge in Family disputes .

The Text of the Judgement is below .

Pashaura Singh vs State Of Punjab &Amp; Anr on 13 November, 2009

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2009

           (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5910/2006)

Pashaura Singh …Appellant  Versus

State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondents   JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has  challenged the order
dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said
order, the petition  filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal  Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002  registered
at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498-A, 494,  506/34, IPC has been
dismissed.

3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada.  On May 7, 1997, she married
Pashaura Singh Sidhu – appellant – at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga,
Punjab. She  left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband  and,
accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998.  They stayed together for
few months and then relations  between them became strained. Kamaljeet,
thereafter, started  living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for
divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court  of British
Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his  favour and their marriage
stood dissolved with effect from  February 8, 2001. After the dissolution of
marriage, Pashaura  Singh came to India and remarried on January 2, 2002.
Pashaura Singh went back to Canada with his newly wedded  wife and both of them
have been residing there.

4. On January 21, 2002, Kamaljeet’s brother Balwant  Singh lodged a first
information report being F.I.R. No. 9 at  Police Station Sehna against Pashaura
Singh, Hakam Singh  (father of Pashaura Singh), Randhir Singh (brother of
Pashaura  Singh), Charanjit Kaur (wife of Randhir Singh) and Harbans  Kaur
(mother of Pashaura Singh) alleging therein that on May  7, 1997 he performed
his sister Kamaljeet Kaur’s marriage with    2

Pashaura Singh; that at the time of marriage, according to his  status, he gave
rupees four lacs in cash, gold jewelry, utensils,  almirah, fifty-one suits,
five bags etc. but the accused started  harassing his sister Kamaljeet Kaur and
threatened to kill her if  she did not bring car, electronic items etc. and that
he has now  come to know that Pashaura Singh has entered into second  marriage
in the first week of January, 2002. A case under  Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34,
IPC was registered against the  accused persons and it appears that the police
submitted  challan against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Barnala.

5. Randhir Singh, Charanjit Kaur (Rajinder Kaur),  Hakam Singh and Harbans Kaur
filed a petition under Section  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
quashing the F.I.R.  No. 9 and criminal prosecution against them. Vide order
dated  April 29, 2004, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed  F.I.R.
No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered against them  and all subsequent
proceedings.

6. Pashaura Singh by a separate petition under  Section 482 of the Code prayed
for quashing F.I.R. No. 9/2002    3

and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him but, as  noticed above, the
High Court by its order dated May 24, 2006  dismissed his petition. The High
Court in its cryptic order, while  dismissing the petition, observed that
Pashaura Singh has  married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already
married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has  not been dissolved.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties  and upon careful perusal of
the materials placed before us, in  our judgment, the order of High Court cannot
be sustained for  more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court
gravely  erred in observing that Pashaura Singh married second time on  January
2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet  Kaur and the aforesaid
marriage has not been dissolved. The  certificate of divorce dated February 26,
2001 issued by the  New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia
shows that the marriage of Pashaura Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur  stood dissolved on
February 8, 2001. As a matter of fact, this  fact is noticed in the order dated
April 29, 2004 whereby the  High Court quashed F.I.R. No. 9 and the subsequent
criminal    4

proceedings against the family members of Pashaura Singh. In  the affidavit
filed by Gurmail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of  Police in response to the
petition filed by the appellant under  Section 482 before the High Court, it has
been admitted that  during investigation on March 14, 2002 Hakam Singh had
produced photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have  been issued by the
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The  observation of the High Court, thus,
that Pashaura Singh  married second time, although his marriage has not been
dissolved, is ex-facie contrary to record.

8. Section 494, IPC, inter-alia, requires the following  ingredients to be
satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have  contracted first marriage; (ii) he
must have married again; (iii)  the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv)
the spouse must  be living. Insofar as present case is concerned the appellant’s
marriage with Kamaljeet Kaur was not subsisting on January 2,  2002 when he is
said to have married second time. Pertinently  before the High Court, along with
reply, the complainant  Balwant Singh annexed copy of an affidavit filed by
Kamaljeet  Kaur which states that she was not aware of the divorce    5

proceedings filed by her husband Pashaura Singh. However,  from this affidavit,
it is apparent that her husband has obtained  a divorce judgment. There is
nothing in the affidavit that divorce  judgment has been stayed or set aside. On
the face of the  allegations made in the first information report, therefore,
ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC are not  satisfied.

9. Insofar as offence under Section 498-A is  concerned, the High Court in its
earlier order dated April 29,  2004 in the petition filed by the family members,
observed thus:   “I have perused the First Information Report registered
against the petitioners.

              The only allegation against the petitioner is that they started
harassing Kamaljeet Kaur Gill for not bringing more dowry. No demand of dowry
has been made by the petitioners, nor is there any specific entrustment, as
alleged in the First Information Report of dowry articles to the petitioners.
Parties have divorced each other, as per the order of the Supreme Court of
British Columbia (Annexure P-1). Order is dated February 25, 2001. It is after
this divorce that Pishora Singh got married in India on January 2, 2002.”

10. Moreover, in the affidavit of Kamaljeet Kaur referred  to hereinabove, there
is not a word about demand of dowry or  harassment on account of dowry by the
appellant.     6

11. We have no hesitation in holding that the first  information report lodged
by Balwant Singh is manifestly  attended with malafides and actuated with
ulterior motive. The  prosecution of the appellant is not at all legitimate,
rather it is  frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process. The
appellant has made out a case for quashing the first information  report and all
subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto.

12. For the reasons indicated above, appeal is allowed  and order dated May 24,
2006 passed by the High court of  Punjab and Haryana is set aside. Resultantly,
F.I.R. No. 9  dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna and  all
subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto stand quashed  and set aside.

13. The pending applications stand disposed of.    ……………………J

                                          (Tarun Chatterjee)

  ……………………J

                                                 (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi,

November 13, 2009.

Link Here :

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/174511/

A Brief Biblical Examination of God’s involvement with Human Illness

1.      Has God inflicted mankind with sickness?. 3

2.      Why did God inflict man with sickness?. 5

2.1        Sickness was a judgement on sin. 5

2.2        Sickness was used to demonstrate God’s power in the earth. 5

3.      Does God still inflict man with sickness?. 6

3.1        The Acts of the Apostles. 6

3.2        1 Corinthians 11. 6

3.3        Hebrews 12. 7

3.4        Revelation. 8

4.      Are there other explanations for sickness?. 8

4.1        That the works of God should be manifest 8

4.2        As a way of God proving the faith and commitment of His children. 8

4.3        As a result of purely natural phenomenon. 9

4.4        As a result of demonic influence. 9

5.      Objections. 9

5.1        Jesus work on the cross is not compatible with God placing sickness on people. 9

5.2        How can a loving God inflict sickness on anyone, especially His own children?. 10

5.3        God does not inflict sickness – His angels do. 10

5.4        God does not inflict sickness – demons do. 10

5.5        Sickness results from a person’s own sin, not as a result of God’s discipline. 11

5.6        The passages attributing sickness to God have not been translated correctly.  God did not inflict sickness upon people but rather allowed sickness to come upon them.  There is seen in the difference between the Hebrew verbs where one is passive and one is active. 11

5.7        It is wrong to pray “If it be thy will Lord, heal me” as God has already revealed His will 12

5.8        God simply removes his protection and allows the fallen natural world and demons to inflict sickness. 12

5.9        God didn’t afflict Job, Satan did. 13

5.10     How can anyone think that Jehovah Rapha (our Healer) would afflict people with sickness. 13

5.11     Jesus took our punishment so God does not afflict us with the punishment Jesus took on our behalf.  So if He ever used sickness to punish people – He doesn’t do it after calvary. 13

6.      Concluding Remarks. 13

6.1        What should we do if we are sick?. 13

6.2        How does this understanding of God and sickness fit with Jesus’ earthly ministry of healing?. 14

6.3        How should we respond to others that are sick?. 14

6.4        What does this reveal about the nature of God?. 15

6.5        What should be considered “sickness”?  Does “personal injury” also mean sickness?. 15

6.6        Today’s “Liberal” views on ‘God and sickness’ 16

6.7        How does God discipline His children?. 16

6.8        Should a person seek medical assistance from doctors if it is God’s will for that person to be sick?  17

6.9        Does God get glory when a person bears up nobly under the distress of sickness and disease. 17

6.10     Other Relevant Verses. 17

7.      Appendix. 18

7.1        Additional Verses. 18

7.2        Comments from others who oppose this view.. 18

7.3        Hebrew Verb Tenses. 18

There have been very conflicting views on this topic.  Broadly, they fit into three categories.  The first group maintains that God is never responsible for inflicting man with sickness and uses sickness to achieve His own ends. The second group maintains that, although God is never directly responsible for man’s illnesses, He does on occasions permit or allow sickness in order to purify or correct and rebuke us.  The last group maintains that God both inflicts sickness upon man and uses sickness to achieve His own end.

This article will endeavor to examine the Scriptural evidence for the views presented above.

1.    Has God inflicted mankind with sickness?

The easiest way to answer this question is by allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves.  It is important to note that we are not here addressing what the scriptures teach.  Rather, we are simply looking at what God has done or promised to do.  This following list is by no means complete.  All emphasis has been added.

Exod 9:13 (ASV) And Jehovah said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. 14 For I will this time send all my plagues upon thy heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 15 For now I had put forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence …

Exod 12:23 (ASV) For Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.  … 29 And it came to pass at midnight, that Jehovah smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the first-born of cattle.

Levi 14:33 (KJS) And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, 34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;

Levi 26:13 (ASV) I am Jehovah your God… 16 I also will do this unto you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; … 25 (TLB) … I will send a plague among you there; and you will be conquered by your enemies.

Deut 24:8 (KJS) Take heed in the plague of leprosy … 9 Remember what the LORD thy God did unto Miriam by the way, after that ye were come forth out of Egypt.

Deut 28:22 (KJS) The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. … 27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. 28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: … 35 The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.

Deut 32:39 (ASV) See now that I, even I, am he, And there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; And there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

2Chr 7:12 (KJS) And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him … 13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; 14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2Chr 21:14 (KJS) Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: 15 And thou [shalt have] great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day. (God’s judgement against Jehoram) … 18 And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. 19 And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases.

2Chr 26:20 (KJS) And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he [was] leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.

1Sam 2:6 (KJS) The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. 7 The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

2Sam 12:15 (KJS) And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

2Sam 24:15 (KJS) So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

2Kin 6:18 (KJS) And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.

2Kin 19:35 (KJS) And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses.

Isai 3:17 (KJS) Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

Isai 38:15 (TLB) But what can I say? For he himself has sent this sickness. All my sleep has fled because of my soul’s bitterness. (Hezekiah’s poem about his sickness)

Jere 14:11 (TLB) The Lord told me again: “Don’t ask me any more to bless this people. Don’t pray for them any more. 12 When they fast, I will not pay any attention; when they present their offerings and sacrifices to me, I will not accept them. What I will give them in return is war and famine and disease.”

Jere 29:17  thus saith Jehovah of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so bad.   18  And I will pursue after them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth, to be an execration, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them;

Zech 14:12 (TLB) And the Lord will send a plague on all the people who fought Jerusalem. They will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away; their eyes will shrivel in their sockets, and their tongues will decay in their mouths. 13 They will be seized with terror, panic-stricken from the Lord … 15 (This same plague will strike the horses, mules, camels, donkeys, and all the other animals in the enemy camp.) … 18 But if Egypt refuses to come, God will punish her with some other plague.

Acts 5:5 (KJS) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. … 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying [her] forth, buried [her] by her husband.

Acts 12:23 (KJS) And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

These Scriptures and others represent God actively involved in inflicting sickness and disease on individuals and nations. Phrases such as “the Lord will”, “the Lord smote”, “God will punish”, “I will”, “the Lord sent”, “He smote”, “the Lord stuck”, “the Lord shall smite” can only be understood to mean one thing – God was responsible for the sickness these individuals suffered.

Still some object to the obvious conclusions drawn from these passages.  Answers to some of these objections are addressed under the appropriate heading.

2.    Why did God inflict man with sickness?

2.1          Sickness was a judgement on sin

Firstly, the Lord is said to inflict sickness on man as a judgement for his sin.  This judgement is not an end in itself but is divine discipline intended to turn man away from sin and back to God.  Sickness was only one of God’s numerous judgements on those that disobeyed Him (others included war, famine, drought, “supernatural” death etc).  A consideration of the context of the Scriptures mentioned above will plainly bear this out.  The following Scriptures also illustrate how God judges sin with sickness and uses it to discipline man and turn him back to God.

Ezek 14:21  For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?

Isai 9:13  For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.

Isai 19:22 (TLB) The Lord will smite Egypt and then restore her! For the Egyptians will turn to the Lord and he will listen to their plea and heal them.

Hose 5:15  I will go [and] return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. 6:1  Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

Amos 4:6 (TLB) “I sent you hunger,” says the Lord, “but it did no good; you still would not return to me. 7 I ruined your crops by holding back the rain three months before the harvest. I sent rain on one city but not another. While rain fell on one field, another was dry and withered. 8 People from two or three cities would make their weary journey for a drink of water to a city that had rain, but there wasn’t ever enough. Yet you wouldn’t return to me,” says the Lord.
9 “I sent blight and mildew on your farms and your vineyards; the locusts ate your figs and olive trees. And still you wouldn’t return to me,” says the Lord. 10 “I sent you plagues like those of Egypt long ago. I killed your lads in war and drove away your horses. The stench of death was terrible to smell. And yet you refused to come. 11 I destroyed some of your cities, as I did Sodom and Gomorrah; those left are like half-burned firebrands snatched away from fire. And still you won’t return to me,” says the Lord.

2.2          Sickness was used to demonstrate God’s power in the earth

Secondly, God inflicted sickness upon mankind in order to declare His greatness and glory and to demonstrate His power.  This idea would come as a surprise to many Christians today.  The idea that God inflicts sickness on mankind is for some, difficult to accept.  But to accept that God uses sickness to “demonstrate [His] power to you and to all the earth” would seem almost unbelievable.  Yet the following verses suggest exactly this.

Exod 9:14 (ASV) For I will this time send all my plagues upon thy heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 15 For now I had put forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence, and thou hadst been cut off from the earth:  16  but in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, to show thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Deut 32:39 (KJS) See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand.

Ezek 6:9 (TLB) Then when they are exiled among the nations, they will remember me, … Then at last they will loathe themselves for all this wickedness. 10 They will realize that I alone am God and that I wasn’t fooling when I told them that all this would happen to them.’“  (10 KJS And they shall know that I [am] the LORD, [and that] I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them) … 12 Disease will strike down those in exile; … and any who remain will die by famine and siege.   So at last I will expend my fury on you. 13 When [you are] slain  … you will realize that I alone am God. 14 … Then you will know I am the Lord.’“

Amos 4: 10 (TLB) “I sent you plagues like those of Egypt long ago … 12 “Therefore, I will bring upon you all these further evils I have spoken of. Prepare to meet your God in judgment, Israel. 13 For you are dealing with the One who formed the mountains, made the winds, and knows your every thought; he turns the morning to darkness and crushes down the mountains underneath his feet: Jehovah, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, is his name.”

3.    Does God still inflict man with sickness?

It seems beyond doubt that God inflicted mankind (often His chosen people Israel) with sickness in the Old Testament.  However that was under the Old Covenant.  Does God use sickness under the New Covenant in the same way as He used sickness under the Old?

Before addressing this question three differences between the Old and New Testaments should be highlighted.  Firstly, the Old Testament books span approximately 3,500 years while the New Testament writings cover no more than 100 years. Secondly, the Old Testament is predominantly a collection of historical writings while the New Testament is predominately a collection of teachings.  Lastly, the Old Testament is roughly four times the size of the New Testament.

Given these facts we would expect the Old Testament to contain substantially more examples of God’s dealings with mankind.  This is due simply to the fact that the New Testament spans fewer years, contains a different type of content, and is significantly smaller in size than the Old Testament.

Still, there are several striking New Testament examples of God inflicting sickness on individuals, Christian and non-Christian alike.

3.1          The Acts of the Apostles

Acts 5:3 (ASV) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land? 4 While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost: and great fear came upon all that heard it.

Acts 12:23 (ASV) And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

Acts 13:8  But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith. 9  But Saul, who is also [called] Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, 10  and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11  And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

3.2          1 Corinthians 11

1Cor 11:28 (KJS) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

1Cor 11:28  (TLB) That is why a man should examine himself carefully before eating the bread and drinking from the cup. 29  For if he eats the bread and drinks from the cup unworthily, not thinking about the body of Christ and what it means, he is eating and drinking God’s judgment upon himself; for he is trifling with the death of Christ. 30  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and some have even died. 31  But if you carefully examine yourselves before eating you will not need to be judged and punished. 32  Yet, when we are judged and punished by the Lord, it is so that we will not be condemned with the rest of the world.

This New Testament example of Christian believers repeats the pattern we have seen in the Old Testament.

The Corinthian Christians were sinning.  They were “not discerning the Lord’s body” (v29).  We are told that they were eating and drinking “damnation” to themselves.  Or rephrased, they were eating and drinking “judgement” on themselves.

We are told in verse 30 that “for this cause”(that is, because of this judgement) many of them were becoming “weak and sickly”.  Verse 31 again reinforces the fact that these Christian were under judgement.

Verse 32 explains that this judgement was in fact the “chastening of the Lord”.  It was the Lord’s judgement that was making the Corinthians “weak and sickly”.  The Greek word “paideuo” (Strongs # 3811) translated here as “chasten” is also translated “learn” (2 times), “teach” (2), and “instruct” (1).  So, we see that the Corinthians were become sick (and some were dying) because God was chastening (or teaching) them.

The verse finishes by explaining that the sickness was being used to chasten or discipline them in order that the Corinthians would “not be condemned with the world”.  In other words, their sickness was to turn them away from their sin and back to God.

As stated before, this passage follows the pattern we have seen in the Old Testament perfectly.  God’s judgement of sin results in sickness.  The sickness is intended to “chasten” or instruct the sinner to turn back to God.  This passage shows that God still punishes His people for their sins in the same way and for the same reasons as He did under the Old Covenant.

3.3          Hebrews 12

Another New Testament passage that appears to link sickness with God’s judgement is found in Hebrews 12. Firstly, it should be made clear that many learned and spiritual men and women have understood this passage (esp verses 12 to 13) to refer to spiritual restoration rather than physical healing.  However a number of facts suggest that this passage may well be referring to God’s punishment which leads to physical sickness and that “making straight paths for our feet” will result in healing.

Hebr 12:5 (KJS) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. … 10 … he [God chastens us] for [our] profit, that [we] might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. 12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; 13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

The first thing to note in this passage is the word used to describe God’s “chastening” (v5).  The Greek word “paideuo” (Strongs # 3811) is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 11.  In 1 Corinthians 11 the word “chasten” was used in a similar context to here.  As we have seen it was used there to describe God’s judgement which resulted in sickness and sometimes death.

Secondly, the word “scourge” (v6) (Greek “mastigoo”, Strongs # 3146), here used to describe God’s chastening is used seven times in the New Testament.  The other six places where this word is always used to describe a physical punishment metered out by man rather than God. Interestingly, this word “mastigoo” is derived directly from the Greek word “mastix” (Strongs # 3148).  “Mastix” is used 6 times in the New Testament, being translated twice as “scourge” and 4 times as “plague” (see Mk 3.10).  Given this, it would seem fair to rephrase verse 6 in this way: “the Lord physically punishes every son He receives”.

Thirdly, the Greek word “paraluo” (Strongs # 3886) here translated as “feeble” in verse 12, is used in only 4 other places in the New Testament. In each instance it refers to a person who was physically “sick of the palsy” (Lu 5.18, 24, Ac 8.7, 9.33).

Fourthly, the Greek word “cholos” (Strongs # 5560) here translated as “lame” in verse 13, is used in 14 other places in the New Testament.  All are found in the Gospels and Acts.  In each instance it describes a person who was physically crippled.

With these thoughts in mind, note how God’s chastening is said to be like a scourge – a physical punishment.  Note also that God’s chastening is linked by the word “wherefore” (meaning “for this cause”) to two verses relating to what appears to be physical sickness and its ultimate healing.  The healing is directly linked to “straight paths for your feet”, a phrase that figuratively describes righteousness (Is 40.3-4, Mt 3.3).  The Hebrews are told that, to see the lame healed, they are to “make straight paths” for their feet.  This suggests that the path they are currently walking is not straight and thus the reason for their “feebleness”.

In summary, this passage could be rephrased like this:

“God physically punishes His children when they sin.  This is ‘grievous’ but will result in the ‘fruit of righteousness’.  However, there is no need for any of you to remain feeble or lame due to this punishment.  Make a ‘straight path for your feet’ by turning to righteousness and the Lord will heal you.”

Again, this passage follows the Old Testament pattern.  God chastises us through sickness in order to teach us that we must live righteously.  If we respond and turn to Him, we, “the lame”, will not “be turned out of the way; but … rather … healed”.

3.4          Revelation

Much of Revelation focuses on God’s judgment of the world in the last days.  The following verses are a very small sample.

Rev 2:21-23 ESV  I [Jesus] gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.  (22)  Behold, I [Jesus] will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,  (23)  and I [Jesus] will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

Rev 6:8 ESV  And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth.

4.    Are there other explanations for sickness?

The Bible gives several instances where sickness is not caused by sin.  They include:

4.1          That the works of God should be manifest

John 9:2 (KJS) And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This passage states plainly that this sickness did not result from the punishment of sin.  The principle that can be drawn from this is that some illnesses and disabilities come about so that God can be glorified through their supernatural healing.

4.2          As a way of God proving the faith and commitment of His children.

The examples of Job (see the book of Job) and Paul show us that sickness comes on people who are not being punished by God and whom God refuses to heal.  There are differing views on these two examples.  There are however a number of facts that all views must accommodate.

Firstly, both Job and Paul (Gal 4.13) were “sick”.

Secondly, both were living extremely righteous lives.  God tells us that Job was the most upright person in the entire world (Job 1.1,8, 2.3, Ez 14.14).  Paul was said to be “holy” and “blameless” (1 Thes 2.10).

Thirdly, God refused to take the sickness away from them for a period of time.

Fourthly, God never indicated that their sickness was a result of their own sin or unbelief.  In Job’s case God tells us that he is blameless and the sickness was without cause (Job 2.3).  The latter part of Job records the longest discourse delivered by God anywhere in the Bible.  There is nothing in what God said in these chapters to suggest that Job’s sickness was a result of His own sin or unbelief.  One would expect that, if Job’s sickness were due to his own sin or unbelief, God would have mentioned that in this lengthy discourse.

This is true also for Paul.  He pleads for God to take away the “thorn in his flesh” to which God replies “My grace is sufficient for you”.  If Paul were experiencing sickness due to some sin in His life then one would expect God to say so.  God gives no rebuke or correction.  Rather the Lord encourages Paul to rest in God’s grace.

4.3          As a result of purely natural phenomenon.

Sickness can also be traced to purely natural causes.  Take for example someone who receives a blood transfusion where the blood is contaminated.  It is a medical certainty that the contaminated blood will carry the disease into the body of the person receiving it.  Or consider the person who is effected by nuclear radiation.  The likelihood of that person getting cancer becomes very high.

4.4          As a result of demonic influence

Luke (ASV) 13:16  And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound, lo, [these] eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the sabbath?

Luke 9:39  (ASV) and behold, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth, and it hardly departeth from him, bruising him sorely.

5.    Objections

5.1          Jesus work on the cross is not compatible with God placing sickness on people.

Some maintain that God inflicting man with sickness is not compatible with Jesus’ saving work on the cross.  It is said that Jesus died in order to take away our sicknesses – why then would God inflict sickness upon us?

This line of argument could have also been used in the Old Testament.  God had promised health and healing to His chosen Jewish nation and confirmed it by establishing a covenant with them.

Deut 7:15 (KJS) And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.

Psal 103:3 (KJS) Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;

But He also “promised” sickness to them if they disobeyed Him.

Deut 28:15 (KJS) But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: … 22 (KJS) The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

What we see in the Old Testament is both promises working together for man’s good.  While the Israelites were faithful God maintained their health.  When they sinned He punished them, sometimes using sickness.  However when they repented He fulfilled His first promise by healing them.  Hosea describes it plainly:

Hose 6:1  Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

It is true that “with his [Jesus] stripes we are healed”.  But God’s promise of “divine health” does not negate the threat of sickness as a punishment due to our own sins.  However, it does guarantee that God will heal us if we turn from our sin back to Him.

Kenneth Copeland presents this objection succinctly but in so doing appears to overlook the many scriptures already presented at length in the first part of this document:

Isaiah 53:10 says, “It was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief and made Him sick” (The Amplified Bible). If it was the will of God to bruise Him and make Him carry our sicknesses, how can it be the will of God to bruise us and make us carry those same sicknesses again?  It can’t be!  That would be a travesty of divine justice![1]

It isn’t and never has been God’s desire for a man to be sick as it will never be the desire of a good parent to physically punish his child.  Jesus’ vicarious death provides God with a “legal right” to heal those children He has had to discipline with sickness.  The work of the cross does not mean that God can no longer use means, natural or spiritual, to discipline His children.  This parental parallel will be dealt with more fully under the following heading.

5.2          How can a loving God inflict sickness on anyone, especially His own children?

Others question how a loving God could purposely inflict His own children with sickness.  It is maintained that no earthly parent would place sickness on his or her own child, so how could God?

Those that maintain this view often have a “double standard”.  While objecting to the idea of God physically punishing His children (through sickness), they may condone and practice the physical punishment of their own children (via the “rod of correction”-Pr 22.15).  In essence both actions are identical. Both involve physical discomfort and pain.

Of course, these two forms of physical suffering differ markedly in both nature and duration.  Sickness can afflict a person’s entire body for a lifetime.  The rod affects a small area of a child’s body for a short period of time only.

This difference in nature and duration can be understood when God’s eternal perspective is considered.  God uses sickness to get our attention and turn us from sin in the same way a parent uses the “rod”.  Many parents believe that the pain they inflict using the “rod” is fully warranted if it stops a child from, say, running onto a busy road to his death.  Likewise, enduring sickness for a number of years is a small price to pay if it will save us from an unimaginable eternity in Hell (1 Cor 11.32).

Hebr 12:10 (TLB) Our earthly fathers trained us for a few brief years, doing the best for us that they knew how, but God’s correction is always right and for our best good, that we may share his holiness.

Finally, it should not be thought that God enjoys punishing His children.  If human parents find it difficult to physically punish their children, how much harder must it be for God.  But like our human parents, our Heavenly Father takes the course of action necessary to ensure us a joyous future.

Lame 3:31 (TLB) for the Lord will not abandon him forever. 32 Although God gives him grief, yet he will show compassion too, according to the greatness of his loving-kindness. 33 For he does not enjoy afflicting men and causing sorrow.

5.3          God does not inflict sickness – His angels do.

Some have suggested that it is not God inflicting sickness but His angels.  This is certainly true in a number of instances.  “The angel of the Lord” is said to be directly responsible for some sicknesses and deaths.  However, this does not alter the fact the Scriptures also attribute responsibility for the sickness to God even when the sickness is inflicted by an angel.   It appears that angels are to God as a needle is to a doctor.  That is, God delivers the sickness through the use of an angel.  It is generally accepted that angels do only what God commands.  Thus any action taken by an angel must have first been a directive delivered by God.

To suggest that God has no responsibility for sickness in these circumstances would be similar to suggesting that a person who shoots another is not responsible but rather the gun is responsible.  This is of course nonsense.

5.4          God does not inflict sickness – demons do.

It is true that demons inflict man with sickness.  There are numerous Gospel examples that attribute sickness to demon oppression and possession.  In these instances it is plain that God bears no responsibility for the sickness.  However, this does not alter the fact that in other Scriptures we are told in the plainest manner that God is responsible for inflicting man with sickness.

5.5          Sickness results from a person’s own sin, not as a result of God’s discipline.

The first part of this objection is certainly true.  The Scriptures give numerous examples showing that personal sin leads to personal sickness.  This principle is put succinctly in Proverbs:

Prov 1:31  Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, And be filled with their own devices.

But to maintain that God never inflicts sickness would require one to ignore dozens of Scriptures that state the opposite.  In fact whole passages of the Bible would become meaningless if we remove God’s responsibility for the sickness He is said to inflict.  These passages are intended to show God’s hatred of sin and God’s mercy in forgiving sin, which can result in physical healing.  If God has no direct responsibility for the sickness then these passages neither show God’s hatred for sin nor his mercy toward sinners.

Certainly man “reaps what he has sown”.  But God also judges those that sin.

5.6          The passages attributing sickness to God have not been translated correctly.  God did not inflict sickness upon people but rather allowed sickness to come upon them.  There is seen in the difference between the Hebrew verbs where one is passive and one is active.

Some have suggested that the passages attributing sickness to God have had their true meaning confused in the translation from the original tongue to English.  They argue that experts in the Hebrew language have determined that these passages don’t describe God inflicting sickness on people but rather God permitting sickness and therefore God cannot be said to be responsible.

If this were true then it is difficult for any person who is not an “expert” in the Hebrew language to trust what he or she reads in the English Old Testament.  If the passages listed above can be easily understood in plain English but cannot be read literally then what passages in the Old Testament can be read literally?

Secondly, those that suggest that “another language expert” is needed to re-translate certain passages appear to be overlooking the fact that our English Bibles have already been translated by hundreds (probably thousands) of the best language scholars the world has known.  Forty-seven scholars worked on the King James Version, 32 scholars on the Revised Standard Version, 20 scholars on the Berkeley version, 30 scholars on the New Revised Standard Version to list just a few.  It doesn’t make sense to suggest that these experts who span hundreds of years and dozens of countries and denominations have all somehow misunderstood the passages referring to God inflicting sickness upon people and thus translated them wrongly (but have got it right everywhere else).

Thirdly, this objection could almost be seen as splitting straws.  That is, if God removes his protection to allow Satan (say) to inflict sickness then God is at least partially and directly responsible.  It would be similar to a parent deliberately leaving the front door unlocked in order to allow their child to be injured.  The parent is as responsible as the offender.

Finally, the details of the objection itself are flawed.  It is true that there are a number of Hebrew verb types where one is permissive and another is causative (see Appendix 7.1).  But both types of verbs are used when attributing the cause of sickness to God.

For example,  Ex 28.27 uses the verb tense Hiphil which one could interpret as being a permissive verb – God allowed sickness to come upon them.  However, in Ex 9.14 the verb tense is Qal which is the active tense (eg he killed).  Lev 14.24 uses both verb tenses in the one sentence with the context supporting their usage.

In fact, the context of Ex 9.14 makes very plain that it was the Lord causing the sickness.  Note the highlighted words below:

Ex 9:14 For I will this time send all my plagues upon thy heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. 15 For now I had put forth my hand, and smitten thee and thy people with pestilence …

5.7          It is wrong to pray “If it be thy will Lord, heal me” as God has already revealed His will

Kenneth Copeland presents this objection,

In the light of such a sacrifice, it is as grievous to the heart of God for us to pray, “If it be Thy will, heal me,” as it is for us to say, “If it be Thy will, save me.”  God revealed His will once and for all when He laid our sickness on Jesus. ….

How dare we, then, ignore what happened there and tell some sick brother that it is God’s will for him to be sick a little longer so he can learn something? (Copeland, 1999, pg 19)

Firstly, Mr Copeland is correct in stating that we should not pray “If it be thy will”.  The Scriptures neither provide us with examples of such prayer nor teach us to pray this way.  Nor is it suggested in this document that such prayers be made.  Rather, we are to seek God for the reason we have become sick and, once the reason is clear, take the appropriate action.

The Scriptures give a number of examples relevant to this objection: 1. Miriam with leprosy (Num 12), 2. David and Bathsheba’s first child (2 Sam 12), 3. Hezekiah when he failed to trust in God’s salvation (2 Ki 19-20), 4. Job when he was tested by the Devil (Job), 5. Paul when God assured Him that His grace was sufficient (2 Cor 12) and 6. the Corinthians when partaking of communion.  These individuals (or people on their behalf) determined God’s will and, once it was known, sought either to change it or themselves or resigned themselves to it.  To believe that God wanted to heal them immediately (if they would only believe His word) would have been to believe the wrong thing.

If Mr Copeland’s teaching was adhered to in the above examples Miriam would not have been healed, David’s child would have still died but David would not have responded as he did, Hezekiah may not have recognised his sin and subsequently died, Job would have had an extra unhelpful friend, Paul would not have penned 2 Corinthians 12, and the Corinthians would have continued to get sick and die after partaking of communion wrongly.

We are not to pray, “If it be thy will”.  We are obligated to determine whether our sickness is due to our sin, our faith, or our world and respond appropriately.

Secondly, Mr Copeland suggests that we belittle Jesus sacrifice if we advise a sick brother that God is testing and teaching him.  In some circumstances this is certainly true.  If a person’s sickness is the natural result of some physical cause or if the sickness is demonic in origin than such advice is useless and, to a degree at least, wastes Christ’s sacrifice.

But if such advice is given to person in a position similar to Miriam or King David or Job then the advice is well placed and helpful.

5.8          God simply removes his protection and allows the fallen natural world and demons to inflict sickness.

This argument is evident in God’s dealing with Job where God had a hedge of protection around Job which presumably was removed to allow Satan to injure Job.  However those that make this argument suggest that this is a more loving thing for God to do than to inflict sickness upon a person directly.

In response to this objection consider this analogy.  A parent has a child who is rebellious.  The parent is too ‘loving’ to discipline the child physically so instead he allows his neighbour to beat the child.  The neighbour however vehemently hates the child and would kill the child at the first opportunity.

So which is more loving?  For the parent to discipline the child himself or to allow a wicked fiend to ‘discipline’ the child.  The answer is obvious.

And so it is with God.  It is better to fall into the hand of  a loving God than for God to remove his protection and allow us to fall into our enemy’s hand.

1Ch 21:13 NKJV  And David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Please let me fall into the hand of the LORD, for His mercies are very great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man.”

5.9          God didn’t afflict Job, Satan did

There is no disagreement on this point.  God had his own purposes which remain mostly concealed from our view.  Indeed, God’s response did not seek to address Job’s many questions.  The Lord just said ‘Who are you to question Me?’

There is no indication that Job’s affliction was to teach or punish him.  It was simply an affliction brought about by spiritual oppression.

5.10       How can anyone think that Jehovah Rapha (our Healer) would afflict people with sickness

This is an appeal (and a good one) to our emotions but it has no basis in Scripture.  A consideration of the passage mentioned shows that the Lord was promising ‘health’ if he was obeyed and terrible diseases if He was disobeyed.  The very verse contradicts the argument put forwarded!

Exo 15:26 NKJV  and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.”

And this view is in plain contradiction to other passages also written at the same time by the same person:

Deu 7:15 NKJV  And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you.

Deu 28:58-61 NKJV  “If you do not carefully observe all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, THE LORD YOUR GOD,  (59)  then the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues—great and prolonged plagues—and serious and prolonged sicknesses.  (60)  Moreover He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you.  (61)  Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the LORD bring upon you until you are destroyed.

5.11       Jesus took our punishment so God does not afflict us with the punishment Jesus took on our behalf.  So if He ever used sickness to punish people – He doesn’t do it after calvary.

Ananias and Saphira would disagree.  So would the Corinthians:

1Co 11:29-32 NKJV  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  (30)  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.  (31)  For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  (32)  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

It cannot be clearer than this.  Christians are chastised with sickness by God.  It is important that we don’t lose sight of the purpose: “that we may not be condemned with the world”.

6.    Concluding Remarks.

6.1          What should we do if we are sick?

How should we respond if we are sick or if we are becoming sick?  Firstly, we must examine ourselves to determine whether we are walking a “straight path”.  We should prayerfully and carefully check whether we have sinned or whether our general conduct has become sinful. God uses sickness to draw attention to sin in the same way as He uses miracles to draw attention to the Gospel.  At the first sign of sickness we must examine ourselves for wrongdoing.

If we believe that God is drawing our attention to an area of sin in our life we must respond by turning from it immediately.  James then advises us to “confess our sins to one another and pray for one another that we may be healed”.  After we have repented we can stand confidently on the promise that God will heal us.

Secondly, if after examining ourselves we determine that the sickness is not a result of God’s chastening, we must determine whether the sickness is intended to prove our faith and commitment to Him.  Again, this can only be done by talking to God directly about the sickness.  Paul said “three different times I begged God to make me well again” (2 Cor 12.8).  We must find out from God whether He is willing to heal us.  If we determine that He is not then we should respond in the same way that Paul responded.  He did not complain about the infirmity but rather was “happy” and “boasted” about it.

1Cor 12.9 (TLB) … Now I am glad to boast about how weak I am; I am glad to be a living demonstration of Christ’s power, instead of showing off my own power and abilities.  10  Since I know it is all for Christ’s good, I am quite happy about “the thorn,” and about insults and hardships, persecutions and difficulties; for when I am weak, then I am strong–the less I have, the more I depend on him.

It should be noted that there are very few examples in the Bible of individuals who were required to endure sickness for this reason.  This suggests that enduring sickness as a test of our faith is more an exception than a rule.

Thirdly, if our sickness is not a result of sin nor is it intended to prove our faith, we can confidently seek God for healing.  God promises in both Testaments that He will heal us (indeed has healed us).  These promises are utterly reliable and need only be trusted to see them realised in our lives.

Matt 8:16 (TLB) That evening several demon-possessed people were brought to Jesus; and when he spoke a single word, all the demons fled; and all the sick were healed. 17 This fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, “He took our sicknesses and bore our diseases.”

6.2          How does this understanding of God and sickness fit with Jesus’ earthly ministry of healing?

Jesus spent much of His earthly ministry demonstrating God’s power to heal people, and never made them sick.  This ministry of Jesus, on the surface, appears to directly contradict what has been presented thus far.

It is important to keep in mind that God has both promised to “heal” people of their sicknesses (if they turn to Him) and to “smite” them with sickness (if they turn away from Him).  What we see in Jesus’ ministry is the first promise being fulfilled.  The purpose of the incarnation was to save people from sin and sickness.  However Jesus will not always be the “approachable Saviour” ready to heal.

We are told that, when Jesus returns the second time, he will not be coming to save but to judge people.  When He returns people will hide in caves terrified of Him.  They will certainly not be seeking Him out for healing.  He will separate the bad from the good and condemn the bad to an eternity in Hell.   The picture of Jesus’ first coming is in stark contrast with His second coming.

That God is “unchanging”, does not mean that He does the same thing all the time.  Sometimes He shows mercy (eg. the woman caught in adultery), other times He executes judgement (eg. Ananias and Saphira).  Sometimes He heals (eg. Jesus ministry) other times He kills with sickness (eg. King Herod, David and Bathsheba’s first child).  These actions are not in conflict with each other but rather compliment one another.  They reveal a different facet of God’s unchanging character.

6.3          How should we respond to others that are sick?

The examples given in the New Testament help us understand how we should respond to those who are sick.  Firstly, whatever our response is it must come from a compassionate attitude towards that person.

Secondly, we should recognise that neither Jesus nor the Apostles healed everyone.  The Biblical record tells us that every person that came to Jesus for healing received it.  But Jesus did not appear to pursue the sick in order to heal them.

Thirdly, we see that Jesus and the Apostles often perceived faith in a person who was sick and then responded to that faith by healing them.  We also read that Jesus could not heal people when there was a lack of faith.

Mark 6:4 (ASV) And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.

This suggests that we should consider whether someone believes they can be healed before we pray for healing for them.

Fourthly, we must be aware that some people are sick because of their own sin.  Thus, prayer is not what is required but repentance.  If we believe that God has revealed this to us then it behoves us to speak honestly to the sick person about possible sin.

6.4          What does this reveal about the nature of God?

There is always a danger that we forget we are made in God’s image and attempt to mould God into our own image, or at least into an image that we can accept easily.  This is what some seem to be doing today.  They find it difficult (some find it impossible) to believe that the God who died in their place could also inflict them with sickness and disease.  As a result they create an image of God which is plainly at odds with whole chapters of the Bible.  Of course this has an adverse effect on our Christian walk.

Firstly, a misunderstanding of God’s nature necessarily leads to disappointment.  If we believe God never inflicts sickness on people and that His will is to always heal (regardless of personal sin) then we will be disappointed when God refuses to heal.  This disappointment can lead to distrust.  We believe God should act one way but He acts another thus we cannot trust what God says.  No good ever comes from distrusting the infinitely trustworthy God.

Secondly, the closeness of our relationship with another is determined by how well we know that person.  My relationship with God will always be hindered if I think God is something that He isn’t.

Thirdly, we pay for our doctrinal errors in practical failure.  All errors we have regarding God and the spiritual life will result in lifestyle failures.  The Scriptures put it another way: “The truth shall make you free” (Jn 8.32).  If the truth makes us free then one might expect that “untruths” would leave us bound.  When we must deny the plain reading of Scripture in order to accommodate our image of God we can be certain that this “untruth” is hindering our spiritual growth.

6.5          What should be considered “sickness”?  Does “personal injury” also mean sickness?

We use the term sickness to describe any ailment from a headache to terminal cancer.  We have seen that God inflicts the unrepentant man with serious illness and disease even unto death.  But does He also use minor ailments to discipline us?

The Scripture does not seem to shed much light on this topic.  Minor ailments are all but ignored in the Scriptures.  So any definite answer to this question is purely conjecture and should be treated us such.

With this in mind, we could extend the analogy used in Hebrews of God disciplining His spiritual children in the same way as a father disciplines his earthly children to the question before us.  Most earthly parents have various degrees of punishment that may range from a verbal rebuke to the “rod” of correction.  The punishment metered out is determined by the gravity of the sin.

Given this, it would seem logical that God would also have numerous “punishments” of differing degrees of severity.  Thus, perhaps a headache or aching joints could be attributed to God’s Fatherly chastising.

It must be kept in mind that there are a number of other reasons why people become sick all of which have nothing to do with God’s punishment.  Therefore the onus is on us to determine before God why such sickness has befallen us and then deal with it appropriately.

Secondly, we should view personal injury in the same way as we view sickness.  It is possible that an injury could be the result of either God’s judgement, our foolishness, God’s testing or our living in a natural world.  It is our responsibility to talk to God to determine how we should respond to such an event.

6.6          Today’s “Liberal” views on ‘God and sickness’

It seems that the view held by some Christians today on this subject of God and sickness is similar to the liberal (and unscriptural views) held by many in our communities regarding corporal punishment.  There has been a substantial movement to abolish corporal punishment from our schools and homes.  The basic argument against administering physical punishment is that it is fundamentally “child abuse”.

Of course, Christian’s disagree with this view based on clear Scriptural direction to lovingly administer physical discipline.  And those that have experienced such discipline know its value.

Prov 13:24  He that spareth his rod hateth his son; But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Prov 22:15  Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; [But] the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Prov 23:13  Withhold not correction from the child; [For] if thou beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14  Thou shalt beat him with the rod, And shalt deliver his soul from Sheol.

Prov 29:15  The rod and reproof give wisdom; But a child left to himself causeth shame to his mother.

Interestingly some Christians use a similar “liberal” argument in attempt to prove that God does not inflict sickness.  They would argue that it is a form of “child abuse” for God to inflict His own children with sickness.  And since God could not be guilty of “child abuse” He certainly does not inflict people with sickness.

But as we have already seen, this view is not Scripturally sound.

6.7          How does God discipline His children?

Those that maintain that Jesus death provides us with healing or health in every circumstance must ask themselves how God then disciplines His children.  How does God apply “the rod of correction” to the Christian who is not walking righteously?

It may be argued that God punishes us by removing His protective “hedge” around us which will make us vulnerable to the attacks of the devil.  But this is not punishment at all.  Only an irresponsible parent will remove their protection from a child who needs a firm guiding hand.  Imagine the human tragedy if all parents everywhere withdrew their protective hand and allowed their children to negotiate by themselves our busy roads.  This would at best be deemed irresponsible and at worst child abuse.

Punishment in most cases requires the ‘punisher’ to be active in the punishment.  A parent who punishes his child by allow her to touch a stove hot plate is not punishing but abusing the child.

Others might suggest that God causes painful things to happen to us in other areas of our lives, perhaps in our finances.  Usually those who believe that God never punishes using sickness also believe that God has promised us material prosperity.  But the same arguments used against sickness as a means of discipline can be used against this method also.  That is, there are numerous promises in the scriptures referring to the prosperity of God’s people.  How can God, who has promised prosperity, break that promise and give us less than prosperity?  Or, if it is argued that He only allows it to happen, then it cannot be deemed punishment at all.

Finally, if the punishment is not physical but spiritual then how is that punishment to be felt.  If a person is sinning and has a heart hardened towards God, how will that person ‘feel’ a spiritual punishment delivered by God.

Whole chapters of the Old Testament describe God’s punishment of His disobedient children.  In most cases that punishment was felt physically through oppression by enemies, through pestilence, plagues, wars, famines and through sickness.

6.8          Should a person seek medical assistance from doctors if it is God’s will for that person to be sick?

This question highlights a difficulty with the choice of language.  To say “it is God’s will that a person is sick” conveys the idea that God ‘desires’ that person to be sick.  But this is certainly not the case.  It may be a parent’s ‘will’ that their child be physically punished for bad behaviour but one would not say that the parent desired it to happen.  To will something does not necessarily imply that it is desirable.

A person who is sick is still responsible to care for his or her physical body.  Suppose Miriam, who was inflicted with leprosy by God, chose to mutilate herself while outside the Israelite camp.  Of course this will displease God even further.  Suppose, then, she does not care for her body but allows it to be eaten away by the leprosy.  Of course, this is also displeasing to God for she is not caring for the body God has given her. God was punishing her for one sin.  Further sinning through neglecting her body is in no way going to redeem herself in the eyes of God.

Thus, even though God’s punishment may involve physical sickness, our duty before God to care for own bodies requires that we are to do our best to relieve our suffering.  The same principle applies to doctors and medical institutions.

6.9          Does God get glory when a person bears up nobly under the distress of sickness and disease.

This idea has been maintained by some but it seems to have little or no Biblical basis.  It is true that the Scriptures record a number of instances where God required people to bear sickness for a period of time.  But it is not suggested that God gained glory from these events.

Of course God can be glorified through many and varied circumstances.  A person who exhibits the fruit of the spirit at any time, but especially when it is most difficult to do so, will undoubtedly bring glory God.

The

But this does not exclude God being glorified if that person were healed.

6.10       Other Relevant Verses

Exod 4:11 (KJS) And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Ezra 9:13  And now, even after our punishment in exile because of our wickedness (and we have been punished far less than we deserved), and even though you have let some of us return,

James 5:13 (KJS) Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. 14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

James 5 links sickness in Christians with sin. It describes how the forgiveness of sin can go hand in hand with healing. Those who are “sick” will in the process of being healed have their “sins … forgiven”.  Or said a different way, “confess your faults one to another”, implying repentance, “that ye may be healed”.

Psal 89:30  (ASV) If his children forsake my law, And walk not in mine ordinances; 31  If they break my statutes, And keep not my commandments;  32  Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes. 33  But my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, Nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. 34  My covenant will I not break, Nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

7.    Appendix

7.1          Additional Verses

Exo 13:15 NKJV  And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.’

Exo 15:25-26 NKJV  So he cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showed him a tree. When he cast it into the waters, the waters were made sweet. There He made a statute and an ordinance for them, and there He tested them,  (26)  and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.”

Num 3:13 NKJV  because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the LORD.”

Num 8:17 NKJV  For all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine, both man and beast; on the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them to Myself.

Num 33:4 NKJV  For the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn, whom the LORD had killed among them. Also on their gods the LORD had executed judgments.

7.2          Comments from others who oppose this view

WOULD GOD AFFLICT A CHILD WITH SICKNESS?  This is ANATHEMA to me & MOST Christians. HOW can anyone think that Jehovah Rapha would afflict a CHILD of all people – who sounds as if they are BELOW the age of responsibility. God has to RIP UP the NEW COVENANT & tell Jesus “your sacrifice to bring healing (as well as forgiveness) has to NOT APPLY to some people because I want to teach them a lesson!” God has to GO AGAINST His Own NATURE as a Healer, in order to do this. Did Jesus even once say to someone YOU HAVEN’T LEARNED YOUR LESSON YET – so stay sick for a while longer? Was JOB afflicted by God or Satan – clearly by SATAN ! Did He ever say – I am now removing this sickness because you have learned your lesson? In virtually every case where Jesus did say something slightly corrective to a person (e.g. go & sin no more) HE HEALED THEM FIRST… not after dealing with the issue God supposedly had afflicted them about.  Jesus TOOK OUR PUNISHMENT – so God does not AFFLICT us with the punishment Jesus took on our behalf – so, if He ever used sickness to punish people – He doesn’t do it AFTER CALVARY.

RESPONSE:

Rev 2:23 NKJV  I [Jesus] will kill her [Jezebel's] children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

2Sa 12:15 NKJV  Then Nathan departed to his house. And the *LORD struck the child* that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill.

7.3          Hebrew Verb Tenses

Some have suggested that the Hebrew verb tense used when referring to instances where God is said to be responsible for sickness is permissive rather than causative.  They argue that this means God is not directly responsible for the sickness inflicted but is allowing other events and beings to cause the sickness.

Dr Robert Young, author of Young’s Analytical Concordance and Hints To Bible Interpretation, points out that in the original Hebrew (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew), the verb is in the permissive rather than causative sense.

So, Deuteronomy 28:27 should have been translated something like, “The Lord will allow/permit these plagues to be brought upon you…”

The original Hebrew of these scriptures was in the permissive tense, but because the English language has no corresponding permissive tense, the verbs were translated in the causative tense.[2]

The logical problem with this argument has been treated on page 12 already.  However the reference made to various Hebrew tenses is also incorrect.  This can be determined fairly easily through the use of the online Bible tool http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/verbtense.html

It is true that there is an Active and Passive tense to the Hebrew verbs.  But in all instances I have checked the active form of the verb is used.  This is the reason the translators have translated the verses as ‘he struck’ rather than ‘he allowed to be struck’.

The ‘Causative’ form of the verb has both active and passive tenses.  The active form can be rendered “he caused to kill”.  The passive form can be rendered “he was caused to kill”.  All the references in De 28.22-35 use the active/causative form of the verb.  Thus, the translation “God caused to strike you with boils” is essentially the same as the NKJV rendering of “the Lord will strike you”.

But even if we were to eliminate the causative (Hiphil) verses from the list given, there are still many verses in both the Simple and the Intensive form that can be used to demonstrate that God directly inflicts sickness upon people.

The following verses use an active verb (he killed / he caused to kill) and so attribute the sickness directly to the action of God.

Exo 9:14 NKJV  for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.

Deu 24:9 NKJV  Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way when you came out of Egypt!

2Ch 21:14 NKJV  behold, the LORD will strike your people with a serious affliction–your children, your wives, and all your possessions;

2Ch 21:18 NKJV  After all this the LORD struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.

Lev 26:16 NKJV  I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

Deu 28:27 NKJV  The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, with tumors, with the scab, and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed.

Verb Tense Usage:

Simple

• Qal (active) – he killed
• Niphal (passive) – he was killed

Intensive – giving force or emphasis; emphasizing
[very in the very same man is an intensive adverb]

• Piel (active) – he killed indeed! / he slaughtered
• Pual (passive) – he was killed indeed! / he was slaughtered
• Hithpael (reflexive) – he killed himself

Causative – expressing causation, as certain verbs
[fell is a causative verb meaning to cause to fall]

• Hiphil (active) – he caused to kill
• Hophal (passive) – he was caused to kill

List of Verses where God is responsible for sickness

Exo 9:13-15 NKJV  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Rise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD God of the Hebrews: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me,  14  for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.  15  Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth.

Exo 12:23 NKJV  For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you.

Exo 12:29 NKJV  And it came to pass at midnight that the LORD struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock.

Lev 26:16 NKJV  I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

Lev 26:21 NKJV  ‘Then, if you walk contrary to Me, and are not willing to obey Me, I will bring on you seven times more plagues, according to your sins.

Lev 26:25 NKJV  And I will bring a sword against you that will execute the vengeance of the covenant; when you are gathered together within your cities I will send pestilence among you; and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

Num 3:13 NKJV  because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the LORD.”

Num 12:10 NKJV  And when the cloud departed from above the tabernacle, suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and there she was, a leper.

Deu 24:8-9 NKJV  “Take heed in an outbreak of leprosy, …  9 Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way when you came out of Egypt!

Deu 28:20 NKJV  “The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me.

Deu 28:21-22 NKJV  The LORD will make the plague cling to you until He has consumed you from the land which you are going to possess.  22  The LORD will strike you with consumption, with fever, with inflammation, with severe burning fever, with the sword, with scorching, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.

Deu 28:27 NKJV  The LORD will strike you with the boils of Egypt, with tumors, with the scab, and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed.

Deu 28:28 NKJV  The LORD will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of heart.

Deu 28:35 NKJV  The LORD will strike you in the knees and on the legs with severe boils which cannot be healed, and from the sole of your foot to the top of your head.

Deu 28:59-60 NKJV  then the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues—great and prolonged plagues—and serious and prolonged sicknesses.  60  Moreover He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt, of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you.

Deu 28:63 NKJV  And it shall be, that just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good and multiply you, so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing; and you shall be plucked from off the land which you go to possess.

Deu 29:22 NKJV  so that the coming generation of your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, would say, when they see the plagues of that land and the sicknesses which the LORD has laid on it:

Deu 32:39 NKJV  ‘Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

1Sa 5:6 NKJV  But the hand of the LORD was heavy on the people of Ashdod, and He ravaged them and struck them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territory.

1Sa 5:9 NKJV  So it was, after they had carried it away, that the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction; and He struck the men of the city, both small and great, and tumors broke out on them.

1Sa 25:38 NKJV  Then it happened, after about ten days, that the LORD struck Nabal, and he died.

2Sa 6:7 NKJV  Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the ark of God.

2Sa 12:15 NKJV  Then Nathan departed to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill.

2Ki 15:5 NKJV  Then the LORD struck the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death; so he dwelt in an isolated house. And Jotham the king’s son was over the royal house, judging the people of the land.

2Ki 6:18 NKJV  So when the Syrians came down to him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, and said, “Strike this people, I pray, with blindness.” And He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.

1Ch 13:10 NKJV  Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzza, and He struck him because he put his hand to the ark; and he died there before God.

2Ch 7:13 NKJV  When I shut up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among My people,

2Ch 13:20 NKJV  So Jeroboam did not recover strength again in the days of Abijah; and the LORD struck him, and he died.

2Ch 21:14-15 NKJV  behold, the LORD will strike your people with a serious affliction—your children, your wives, and all your possessions;  15  and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out by reason of the sickness, day by day.

2Ch 21:18 NKJV  After all this the LORD struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.

2Ch 26:20 NKJV  And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and there, on his forehead, he was leprous; so they thrust him out of that place. Indeed he also hurried to get out, because the LORD had struck him.

1Sa 2:6-7 NKJV  “The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up.  7  The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up.

2Sa 12:15 NKJV  Then Nathan departed to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill.

2Ki 6:18 NKJV  So when the Syrians came down to him, Elisha prayed to the LORD, and said, “Strike this people, I pray, with blindness.” And He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.

2Ki 19:35 NKJV  And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the LORD went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.

Isa 3:17 NKJV  Therefore the Lord will strike with a scab The crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, And the LORD will uncover their secret parts.”

Isa 9:13 NKJV  For the people do not turn to Him who strikes them, Nor do they seek the LORD of hosts.

Isa 19:22 NKJV  And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.

Jer 14:11-12 NKJV  Then the LORD said to me, “Do not pray for this people, for their good.  12  When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence.”

Jer 29:17-18 NKJV  thus says the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad.  18  And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence; and I will deliver them to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth—to be a curse, an astonishment, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them,

Eze 14:21 NKJV  For thus says the Lord GOD: “How much more it shall be when I send My four severe judgments on Jerusalem—the sword and famine and wild beasts and pestilence—to cut off man and beast from it?

Amo 4:10 NKJV  “I sent among you a plague after the manner of Egypt; Your young men I killed with a sword, Along with your captive horses; I made the stench of your camps come up into your nostrils; Yet you have not returned to Me,” Says the LORD.

Zec 14:12-18 NKJV  And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.  13  It shall come to pass in that day That a great panic from the LORD will be among them. Everyone will seize the hand of his neighbor, And raise his hand against his neighbor’s hand;  14  Judah also will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations Shall be gathered together: Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance.  15  Such also shall be the plague On the horse and the mule, On the camel and the donkey, And on all the cattle that will be in those camps. So shall this plague be.  16  And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.  17  And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain.  18  If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Act 5:5 NKJV  Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things.

Act 5:10 NKJV  Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.

Act 12:23 NKJV  Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

1Co 11:28-32 NKJV  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  29  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.  30  For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.  31  For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  32  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Rev 2:22-23 NKJV  Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.  23  I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Rev 16:1-2 NKJV  Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth.”  2  So the first went and poured out his bowl upon the earth, and a foul and loathsome sore came upon the men who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.

[2] http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/verbtense.html

Firstly, the Lord is said to inflict sickness on man as a judgement for his sin.  This judgement is not an end in itself but is divine discipline intended to turn man away from sin and back to God.  Sickness was only one of God’s numerous judgements on those that disobeyed Him (others included war, famine, drought, “supernatural” death etc).  A consideration of the context of the Scriptures mentioned above will plainly bear this out.  The following Scriptures also illustrate how God judges sin with sickness and uses it to discipline man and turn him back to God.

Ezek 14:21  For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?

Isai 9:13  For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.

Isai 19:22 (TLB) The Lord will smite Egypt and then restore her! For the Egyptians will turn to the Lord and he will listen to their plea and heal them.

Hose 5:15  I will go [and] return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. 6:1  Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

Amos 4:6 (TLB) “I sent you hunger,” says the Lord, “but it did no good; you still would not return to me. 7 I ruined your crops by holding back the rain three months before the harvest. I sent rain on one city but not another. While rain fell on one field, another was dry and withered. 8 People from two or three cities would make their weary journey for a drink of water to a city that had rain, but there wasn’t ever enough. Yet you wouldn’t return to me,” says the Lord.
9 “I sent blight and mildew on your farms and your vineyards; the locusts ate your figs and olive trees. And still you wouldn’t return to me,” says the Lord. 10 “I sent you plagues like those of Egypt long ago. I killed your lads in war and drove away your horses. The stench of death was terrible to smell. And yet you refused to come. 11 I destroyed some of your cities, as I did Sodom and Gomorrah; those left are like half-burned firebrands snatched away from fire. And still you won’t return to me,” says the Lord.

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) –

Ian Johnstone said his company was pushing ahead with plans to make chardonnay sexy again after its image was decimated by the hugely popular TV comedy show.

“They weren’t our best sales people,

Kath & Kim

, and it created a negative feel for what is the world’s most flexible grape,” he e said.

The foxy morons’ mispronunciation of chardonnay as “Cardonay” in their international hit comedy series has clearly not left the wine industry laughing, judging from Foster’s judgement of the market.

Combined with the tax advantages which New Zealand imported white wines shared with the Australian industry, Foster’s nominated its wine area where it faced challenges – but confidently.

“We’ve all been seduced over to that (sauvignon blanc) and forgotten some of the old favourites,” Mr Johnston said.

As confidence returns, so does the start of the group’s lucrative “party season’”- after footy grand finals, the Spring Racing Carnival and the festive season.

“It is a peak period for alcohol consumption particularly around things like sparkling wines,” Mr Johnstone said.

Foster’s said beer sales in Australia were continuing to benefit from positive market conditions and “earnings momentum remains strong”.

Source: Sour grapes over Kath and Kim"s "cardy" | Business Breaking News | News.com.au

It is a cute custom to pardon a turkey each year. I hope that President Obama will now pardon one of the innocent babies due to be aborted. What is the use of looking after the poor turkey and killing the unborn?

Now I have a word for the Kennedy Family, not all of them,  but only those members of the Kennedy family, who are for abortion etc.  Your wealth, fame and power, won’t be any good to you when you come to judgement before God after your death, so don’t imagine that it will.

Revelation, chapter eleven, verse number two; “BUT THE COURT WHICH IS WITHOUT THE TEMPLE LEAVE OUT, AND MEASURE IT NOT; FOR IT IS GIVEN UNTO THE GENTILES: AND THE HOLY CITY SHALL THEY TREAD UNDER FOOT FORTY AND TWO MONTHS.” 

We have seen the inner church which is referred to as the “temple of God” being measured, however, we now see the outer court being ordered of God to leave out.  This outer court represents the modern church that the world has fallen in love with.  At this moment, if you are a part of that “inner church,” you know exactly what I am talking about, however, if you are a part of the “outer court,” I am not making a bit of sense.  This distinction can only be made through the application of the “Word of God”.  Notice that I didn’t say through “reading” the word of God.  It can be understood through the “application” of the Word of God.  Notice also that in one illustration, I have used the small ‘w’ in word and in the other, I have capitalized the ‘W’ to form ’Word”.  I havn’t lost my mind.  If you’re only reading the word, you’re just leafing through another book.  Okay, don’t jump ahead of me; let’s deal with this issue of ”just another book.”

There is a big issue concerning taking ’sacraments’ in church.  We are told by those in church that we should not partake in the “Lords Supper” if we aren’t worthy.  Many churches substitute grape juice and crackers for this event.  Here’s the question; when do grape juice and crackers cease to be grape juice and crackers?  It is thought that if we partake of the “Lord’s Supper” when we are unworthy, we shall become “weak and sickly.”  No, no, no, come on!

Jesus said in the twenty fifth verse of the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians, “AFTER THE SAME MANNER ALSO HE TOOK THE CUP, WHEN HE HAD SUPPED, SAYING, THIS CUP IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: THIS DO YE, AS OFT AS YE DRINK IT, IN REMBERANCE OF ME.”  Now understand that the “New Testament” was not written when Jesus said these words.  Jesus was talking, not about a book, but a new order of obtaining the graciousness of God through the shed blood of the Son of God.  It was a New Testament; a new “WILL,”  something that is passed on to a benefactor through the death of the giver.  That bible that you fold across your breast when you close your eyes to sleep is only a copy that was written down, but child, the “TESTAMENT“ is settled in Heaven!  To be sure, the Lord’s Supper is a transition of something that began when the Children of Israel departed Egypt.  It began as a rememberance of the “Passover Lamb” that prevented the death of the first born throughout Egypt when the angel of the Lord spared the dwelling that had the blood on the doorpost.  This was established by Jesus as something no longer needing to be observed after his death at Calvary and he instituted the Lord’s Supper in its place as something to be observed till he returns for us.  All of this is to keep us mindful of the fact that he is going to come again therefore we should partake of the Lord’s Supper, however, the power of sickness and health, life and death lies in the Word. 

We need to go to the book of Saint John, chapter six, verses thirty two and thirty three.  “THEN JESUS SAID UNTO THEM, VERILY, VERILY, I SAY UNTO YOU, MOSES GAVE YOU NOT THAT BREAD FROM HEAVEN; BUT MY FATHER GIVETH YOU THE TRUE BREAD FROM HEAVEN.  FOR THE BREAD OF GOD IS HE WHICH COMETH DOWN FROM HEAVEN, AND GIVETH LIFE UNTO THE WORLD.”  Here we see Jesus declare that the bread of God is “he” that God sends down from Heaven and that “he” gives life unto the world.  Now, in verse number thirty of the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians, we read, “FOR THIS CAUSE MANY ARE WEAK AND SICKLY AMONG YOU, AND MANY SLEEP.”  When the Apostle used that word “sleep,” he actually means that they are dead!  Listen to me; the grave yards are full of people that need not be there if only they had heeded the word of God!  I have seen that life prolonging power at work right in the hospital room where the doctor said that death was imminent.  I know that the power is real and I know that the power is in the name of Jesus!  I have seen hearts repaired, vision restored, head trauma reversed, and childhood desease removed instantly, and that is to only name a few. 

Chapter six of Saint John, verse thirty five. “AND JESUS SAID UNTO THEM, I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE: HE THAT COMETH UNTO ME SHALL NEVER HUNGER; AND HE THAT BELIEVETH ON ME SHALL NEVER THIRST.”  There can be no doubt that Jesus is the bread of life, however, we need to go back to chapter number one of Saint John, verses one through four.  “IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.  THE SAME WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD.  ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE.  IN HIM WAS LIFE; AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN.”  Here we have it; the Word of God is the Son of God.  That is why the Father and the Son are one. 

Jesus is not so much ink upon a page nor a mark upon a scroll.  He is not the King James Version nor the N.I.V.  Jesus is the voice out of the Burning Bush; he is the instruction at Mount Sinai.  He is the thunder at Calvary and the Rushing Mighty Wind at Pentecost.  Jesus is the small voice heard by Samuel and Jesus is that tug at your heart.  Jesus is spilled over into everything and contained in nothing.  Jesus is on the loose through the Cosmos and visited Hell.  He has saw the inside of the womb and busted the tomb and now he sits at the right hand side of the Father.  Jesus is not something written down but he is that which was lifted up that he might be all in all; Jesus is the voice of Almighty God; he is the Word!

When we look at these two verses of scripture that usher us into chapter eleven, we must understand that judgement has begun in the house of God for this to even be considered.  If the temple and altar represent the true church and the outer court represents the emerging church, it would indicate that the outer court is positioned almost the same as the world.  Okay, let’s return to the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians, verse number thirty one and thirty two.  “FOR IF WE SHOULD JUDGE OURSELVES, WE SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED.  BUT WHEN WE ARE JUDGED, WE ARE CHASTENED OF THE LORD, THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED WITH THE WORLD.”  Do you see that?  Right here in this section of scripture where we get the Lords Supper from, we see that the church can be condemned along with the world for failure to follow the guidelines laid out in scripture for believers to follow.  That is the judgement that puts the church in two different categories, one which is the true church which shall be caught away when Jesus returns to catch away his bride.  The other is the outer church which will be left behind after the true church is caught up to meet the Lord in the air.  This is the second three and a half years, ( forty and two months) spoken of in the twelfth chapter of the book of Daniel.    

Yesterday I was listening to a Christian radio station that was doing a fundraising campaign for gospel missions around the country. They were challenging all of their listeners to “Give where you live” in order to support a local rescue mission in your town so they can supply the homeless with a Thanksgiving dinner. I love that they do this every year, AND I love the testimonies of the people who have been helped through this campaign in the past.  I was sobbing listening to story after story of how missions had not only provided food and shelter for people who were facing hard times…but how they also saved peoples lives through God’s powerful spirit of love and grace.

I’ve talked before about how hard it has been to be on the receiving end of help for the past year. God has humbled me in places I didn’t even know I had, and I am better for it. To be honest…before we were pushed head first into the most trying season of our lives, in some twisted way, giving and helping the needy gave me a small sense of superiority. (OK I know that’s disgusting, but I’m just being honest.)

I have never had to go hungry, in fact the 20 extra pounds that ride passenger on my butt everyday are examples of just the opposite. I’ve always had a roof over my head and my children have always been safe and provided for. Praise Jesus! While I can’t identify with hunger pains and truly loosing everything…I can relate to feeling helpless in circumstances that are beyond my control. Have you ever judged people that have obviously been through the system – who may or may not work hard for a living – who may or may not be on welfare – who may or may not have many children with different fathers? A couple of months ago I was in a waiting room surrounded by people from all walks of life. I desperately wanted to scream “I don’t belong here!! I am not like these people!” But instead I had to fight back the tears as I heard God tell me, “Lindsay, you are no better than anyone in this room…I love them all…they are all mine.” I begged God for forgiveness and I have to say, I haven’t been the same since.

Yesterday on the radio one lady in particular stood out. She talked about how a couple of years ago she had been the recipient of a food basket from Hope for the Hungry. She explained how hard it was to not be able to afford to put meet in her freezer for her family and then how overwhelming it was to receive a huge basket of much needed food for Thanksgiving. Now, she has shared her testimony with her church and she was helping others in her community by handing out food baskets last night. She went on to say how everything she has is because of God and everything she is for His glory. (Her words were so much more beautiful and impacting.) As they wrapped up her segment the DJ’s came back with, “Well you can’t out give God.” Ahhhhh! I don’t even know what that means and I think we can all agree that corny Christian cliché’s are so last year!! Anyway, I will no longer look at the “needy” in judgement or with pity or as a charity cases … but I will identify with their hurts and fears with love and respect.

Thank you God for giving me perspective.

Read John 14 (Click on the link to read it in NIV or select your prefered version when the window opens.)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

You hear it a lot today… “I’m a good person. I don’t need the church or all that Bible stuff. I’ve tried to live a good life like Jesus said we should. I’m not worried about the afterlife because I believe God will be okay with how I’ve lived my life.”

Others will ask, “How can God punish these ‘good’ people?”

I don’t believe God wants to punish people as much as people want to imply. That isn’t the problem at all. The problem is that God didn’t create a perfect and glorious place like heaven for people who don’t want him.

At the beginning of time God created the heavens and the earth. He brought mankind onto this earth, and he gave them the choice to accept or reject his commandments. Just as Adam and Eve rejected his first and only commandment in the Garden of Eden, man has continued to reject his commandments unto this day.

God gives us the opportunity to accept his forgiveness for our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ. It was no small sacrifice for Jesus to endure the crucifixion and death on a cross to pay for our sins. The choice is ours. Do we want God or don’t we? If we choose Jesus we choose God. If we don’t choose Jesus we are saying we don’t want his Father, the God of all creation.

Those who don’t want God, have no right to expect him to open heaven’s doors to them when their time comes. By choosing not to follow God’s commandments people have messed up the earth already. The problems of humankind’s sins are escalating before our very eyes. Why should we expect God to allow this to happen to his glorious heaven as well?

So what about the punishment of hell? Do people who have tried to be good in their own strength but didn’t choose to accept Jesus have to be punished the same way as terrible criminals do? I won’t attempt to give an absolute answer here, only food for thought. If all the people who accepted Jesus go to heaven to be with God, Jesus, and all the heavenly angels; and only those who chose not to accept Jesus are left outside to fend for themselves with Satan and all his demons who are eager to offer their brand of spiritual help, what is it going to be like? 

The final word will be one of two: You wanted him and accepted him. {Or} You didn’t want him - you rejected him.

Father God, I pray for those who don’t understand, for those who are so willing to let themselves be fooled into believing their only measuring stick for entering heaven is how they measure up to the persons around them. Wake us all from our slumber and give us eyes to see who you really are. Show us your compassion.

Read the entire passage of John 14. It is so powerful.

© 2009 by Janice D. Green

Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NIV) are from THE HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

I never brag, I never boast.
Your silent disappointment irks me the most;
I never asked for your opinion,
Still you send your silent minion.

Why must you look at me that way?
Is your silent criticism words you can’t say?
Your thoughts I definitely don’t deserve,
Yet they’re something you preserve.

I hate that look you love to give.
Please leave me alone and let me live!
Haven’t you realized I’m in control?
If something goes wrong, I’ll pay the toll.

These are my wants, my decisions!
For once, will you consider my position?
I’m the director: I run the show,
And if you don’t like it, you can surly go.

I won’t hold you back; please, go ahead.
Say all the things that need to be said.
I won’t interrupt if you speak your mind.
Just don’t forget: we’re both the same kind.

You’re not higher, neither am I.
And unlike you, I do not lie.
I never order, and I don’t judge,
But I can hold a serious grudge.

Want to be on my bad side? Be my guest.
I’ll take up your offer without a request.
Want to be on my good side? You’ll have to try hard.
Otherwise to me, you’re just some lard.

Living, breathing, taking up space?
If you want me to, I’ll think you’re waste!
Cursed, wretched, filthy and poor?
When you need me most, don’t knock on my door!

How can you think such things of me
When I think of you equally?
Why do the good attract the bad?
Don’t say I’m wrong: I surly had.

Love me and I’ll love you back.
Hate me and I might attack.
I don’t care if I win or lose,
‘Cause in the end, we’ll just hit snooze.

Is this some type of game to you?
This is my life. Is that something new?
I hope you know that I don’t care.
Defy me, if you dare.

I don’t do what you do to me.
This is unfair. Can’t you see?
I don’t want to hear your silence.
But I must say: I don’t care hence.

No longer shall I care one bit.
If I must, on you I’ll spit.
I won’t cry a silent tear.
Defy me, if you dare.

________________________________
From: niladri_shekhar_das_in <niladri_shekhar_das_in@yahoo.co.in>
To: saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 1:02:00 PM
Subject: [SaveIndianFamily] Re: List of articles exchanged during marraige – Format

 
The Judgement dated 21st August, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. states:

Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent
on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry
Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain:

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or
bridegroom, a description of such relationship.

(d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom.

And the full judgement

============ ========= ========= ========= =
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Bail Application No.1711/2007

Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
$ State and Anr. …….
Respondents

Bail Application No.1716/2007

Sh.Harbhajan Singh Chopra …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
$ State and Anr. ……. Respondents

Present: Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Karan Singh, Mr.Santosh Chaurihar,
Mr.Miraj Kain and Mr.Ravinder Singh,
Advs. for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Soni for the State.

Mr.K.K.Manan, Mr.Tarun Goomber,
Mr.Rishikesh Choudhary and
Mr.Gaurav Goswami for respondent No.2.

21.08.2007
DATE OF DECISION: 21.08.2007

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Y

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Y

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Y

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

FIR No.6/2007 dated 3.1.2007
under Section 498-A/406 IPC
PS Hazrat Nizamuddin.

1. Vide Bail Application No.1711/2007, Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra seeks
anticipatory bail. Vide Bail Application No.1716/2007, Sh.Harbhajan Singh
Chopra seeks anticipatory bail. The 2 applicants are the mother-in-law and
father-in-law respectively of the complainant, Arti.
2. At the outset, I must refer my displeasure at the manner in
which Bail Application No.1711/2007 has been drafted by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The same is a verbatim copy of Bail Application No.1716/2007.
4. Use of computers does not mean that learned members of the Bar
would not apply their mind. Human beings cannot become computers and start
operating themselves by clicking a mouse.
5. Little realizing that in Bail Application No.1716/2007 reference
to the applicant was made as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. as
father-in-law of the complainant, even Smt.Surjit Kaur Chopra has been referred
to as father of the husband of the complainant i.e. father-in-law of the
complainant.
6. In the instant case, the misdescription may be trivial. But in
large number of cases I notice that the misdescription is not trivial, more so,
when disputes relate to complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881. In said cases description of the accused with reference
to the role assigned becomes relevant. Precious judicial time is wasted in
identifying who is being referred to and in what context reference is being made
pertaining to persons accused of offence and who have filed quashing petitions
challenging the summoning order.
7. It is hoped and expected that learned members of the Bar would
justify them being referred to as ‘learned counsel’. Their being learned must
be reflected in their pleadings.
8. Referring to the facts, why else would a father-in-law and
mother-in-law be seeking bail? Of course, when their daughter-in- law has filed
a complaint resulting in registration of FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC.
This has happened in the instant case.
9. Since issue of anticipatory bail has to be decided, reference to
the FIR becomes necessary.

10. Touching upon the salient features of the FIR, complainant
Arti, stated that she met Jitender Singh Chopra, son of the applicants in London
in July 2004 through common friends. She states that the two met a number of
times and around 3rd week of September 2004 decided to get married in Dubai on
30.9.2004 She stated that she and Jitender Singh Chopra came to Delhi and got
engaged. That at the time of engagement presents worth Rs.15 lakhs were gifted
by her parents to the in-laws and relatives of Jitender. That her in-laws gave
her jewellery worth Rs.40 lakhs. That at the asking of her prospective mother-
in-law, for relatives who were not present at the engagement, her mother sent
additional gifts worth Rs.5 lakhs. That marriage between the complainant and
Jitender was solemnized at Dubai on 27.10.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs.
At the time of marriage her mother, relatives and friends gave gifts worth Rs.70
lakhs. Her in-laws gifted her jewellery worth Rs.90 lakhs. Next day her
mother-in-law took away the jewellery for safe keeping. She and her husband
came to Delhi on 3.11.2004 and stayed at the farm house of the in-laws. The
couple celebrated their first Deepawali. On said function her relatives gave
gifts worth Rs.40 lakhs to her husband. That her mother and her relatives gave
her ancestral jewellery worth Rs.1.75 lakhs at said function. That her in-laws
gave her expensive gifts and jewellery worth Rs.80 lakhs. That when they were
at Delhi her brother-in-law tried to force himself upon her. That she was
disgraced by the family of her in-laws who stated that they expected that she
would bring a Mercedes car in her dowry. That when the couple left for their
honeymoon her husband compelled her to drink excessively as also to indulge in
vulgar sexual acts. That since it was her second marriage she did not speak to
anyone. That on 18.1.2005 she and her husband went back to Dubai. For said trip
her husband demanded Rs.25 lakhs from her mother. Her mother arranged Rs.5
lakhs and gave the same to her husband. That her husband demanded more money.
Her mother paid Rs.15 lakhs. That she came back to Delhi on 29.12.2005 and in
spite of requests to hand over her jewellery, none was being returned to her.
That her father-in-law wanted her parents to transfer ownership rights of 2
floors of their house in name of her husband. That her mother-in-law had
retained her jewellery.
11. According to the petitioners the marriage at Dubai was financed
by the petitioners. Entire stay of the family of the bride was paid for by the
petitioners. That after the wedding, the newly wed came to Delhi to celebrate
their first Deepawali and went back to Dubai in February 2005. They took on
rent a villa and resided separately from the petitioners. That the couple
separated due to temperamental differences. That their son sought divorce in
London due to irreconcilable differences. That the FIR was a counter blast to
the divorce petition filed by their son.
12. Before dealing with the rival submissions on the issue whether
petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail or not, it has to be noted that
petitioners as also their second son i.e. the brother-in-law of the complainant
sought anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attempts
were made to compromise the matter and in full and final satisfaction of all
claims of the complainant not only the FIR be withdrawn but the couple could
agree for an amicable settlement. Order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge records that a settlement was arrived at pursuant
whereto complainant would be paid Rs.4 crores in cash and a flat at DLF Gurgaon
worth Rs.60 lacs would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, the talks broke
down inasmuch as offer was reduced to Rs.2 crores.
13. Petitioners when charged with attempting to wriggle out of an
agreed settlement explained that their younger son was briefing the counsel and
he was receiving instructions from the husband of the complainant for the reason
any payment under the settlement had to be financed by the husband of the
complainant. That unfortunately, their son i.e. husband of the complainant
could not firm up his mind and for said reason settlement failed.

14. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the applicants
urged that proceedings for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a
recovery proceedings. Learned senior counsel urged that the anxiety of the
Court to try and effect a settlement between the warring couple may be a
laudable act but is alien to the exercise of jurisdiction while deciding an
application seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Learned senior counsel urged
that the well known parameters viz. gravity of the offence, seriousness of the
allegations constituting the offence, possibility of the accused absconding or
threatening witnesses of the prosecution, inherent probabilities, for and
against the accused are some of the factors which have to be considered by the
Court while deciding an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
15. Expanding the argument, learned senior counsel submitted that
documents annexed as Annexure-C to the petitions conclusively establish that the
petitioners paid the entire bill at Dubai when marriage took place. Drawing
attention to Annexure-D, learned senior counsel urged that the same evidences
that the newly married couple set up separate residence in Dubai. As regards
the petitioners, learned senior counsel urged that they were residents of Delhi.
Their son was settled abroad. Except for participating in the joyous occasion
of the marriage of their son and showering their blessings and gifts upon the
newly wed as also to finance the marriage, the two had no role to play in the
matrimonial life of the couple. Learned senior counsel further urged that
allegations in the FIR are alien to the social norms of the society from which
complainant, her family and the petitioners come from. Learned senior counsel
explained that main items are gifted to the couple at the time of their
marriage. Thereafter, as and when festive occasions occur, small gifts are
exchanged. Learned senior counsel urged that it was unbelievable that at the
time of Deepawali celebrations after the couple got married, complainant’ s
family members would gift to their daughter and her in-laws, gifts worth Rs.1.75
crores. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the allegations of dowry
demand are against the husband i.e. the son of the petitioners. Allegations of
mental and physical cruelty are against the husband save and except a vague
allegation that on one occasion father-in-law threw a plate at the complainant
and abused her as a bitch. Learned senior counsel stated that the two
allegations pertaining to dowry demand against the father-in-law viz that he
expected his daughter-in- law to bring a Mercedes car and a demand for ownership
rights of 2 floors in her parent’s house at Sunder Nagar are false. Learned
senior counsel submitted that the gravement of the allegation against the
mother-in-law is that she retained the jewellery of the complainant.
16. Learned senior counsel urged that in view of the fact that the
complainant and her husband had set up their matrimonial house at Dubai, a
residence separate from that of the petitioners, considering the social
background of the family of the complainant as also the petitioners it was
unbelievable that the complainant would have handed over her jewellery to her
mother-in-law.
17. Fulcrum of opposition by learned counsel for the complainant
centered around the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
regarding a settlement between the parties from which petitioners back tracked.
Learned counsel submitted that the said settlement evidenced the acknowledgment
by the petitioners that the complainant had to be recompensed. Learned counsel
submitted that the jewellery articles of the complainant have yet to be
recovered. Counsel submitted that the complainants have started dissipating
their assets. Thus, counsel urged that no case is made out to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
18. It is not in dispute that the instant marriage was the second
marriage of both parties. Thus, both would be presumed to be aware of not only
their matrimonial obligations but even the matrimonial laws. Judicial
authorities are replete with a caution by the Courts that the unfortunate

tendency to rope in all family members of the in-laws is a growing trend which
has two side effects. Firstly, innocent persons suffer the trauma of a criminal
prosecution and secondly, even the accused get acquitted for the reason, false
implication of innocent persons is followed by presentation of fabricated
evidence before the Court. So inextricably interwoven is truth with lies that
truth cannot be segregated from lies resulting in benefit of doubt being given
even to the accused persons.
19. More often than not, pertaining to dowry, Courts are faced with
a dilemma inasmuch as tax avoidance is the norm in India. Huge volume of black
money in circulation finds expression in ostentatious marriages. But when
called upon to prove that the family had enough assets to justify the stated
gifts gifted at the time of marriage, family members of the girl side have no
answers. They cannot establish the means to justify their capacity to shower
gifts worth crores.
20. In the instant case, before the in-laws of the complainant can
be called upon to account for the gifts given by the parents of the girl, the
parents of the girl would have to establish their means and their capacity to
gift items worth Rs.3 crores to their daughter and her in-laws.
21. As noted above, gravement of the allegations are directed
principally against the husband. No doubt, there is reference against the
petitioners pertaining to dowry demand and retention of jewellery, but, as noted
above, allegations of dowry demand are against the father-in-law and not against
the mother-in-law. Vice versa, allegations pertaining to retention of the
jewellery of the complainant is against the mother-in-law and not the father-in-
law. Thus, if at all, father-in-law may be answerable to a charge under Section
498-A IPC. If at all, mother-in-law may be answerable for a charge under
Section 406 IPC.
22. Qua the mother-in-law a circumstance which stands out is that
her son and her daughter-in- law had a separate residence at Dubai. The couple
was married at Dubai. Whatever may be the jewellery gifted to the complainant
at the time of marriage, there is no material on record that when she along with
her husband came to India they made a declaration to the Customs Authority that
personal jewellery worth crores was being brought by her i.e. the complainant to
India. Greater probability would be that either jewellery of the value alleged
to be gifted to her by the complainant was not gifted to her, or if gifted, the
same was in her custody at Dubai.
23. Pertaining to the father-in-law I find that the allegations are
general. It is not stated in the complaint that because father-in-law desired
that the complainant should bring a Mercedes car he i.e. the father-in-law took
vengeance against the complainant. What is stated in the FIR is that the
father-in-law commented that he expected that the complainant would bring as
part of dowry a Mercedes car.
24. Prima facie, it is one thing to have a desire and express the
same. It is altogether another thing to raise a demand as per the desire.
25. Allegation of mental cruelty against the father-in-law pertains
to an alleged incident when according to the complainant she served cold food to
her father-in-law. Prima facie, said allegation of cruelty does not relate to a
dowry demand.
26. The only other allegation pertaining to transfer of 2 floors in
the house of the complainant’ s parents at Sunder Nagar is without any
particulars i.e. the day or the month when said demand was raised.
27. In the report published as 2006 (6) SCC 736 Indian Oil
Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. in para 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court lamented as
under:-
?13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a
growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that

civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests o lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family
disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There
is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle
civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged. ?
28. In para 19 of the report published as (2005) 6 SCC 281 Sushil
Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
?19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace.
But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to
light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique
motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out
the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media
coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures
can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentional provision. Merely because
the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to
unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may,
therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers
of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till
then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing
framework. As noted above the object is to strike a the roots of dowry menace.
But by misuse of the provision a nw legal terrorism can be unleashed. The
provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon.
If the cry of ?wolf? is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may
not be available when the actual ?wolf? appears. There is no question of the
investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They
cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry
tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate
objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view.
It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and
the courts start with the presumptions that the investigating agencies and the
courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that
the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalized a
statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable.
It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is
that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see
that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless
and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no
direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial
evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to
circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.?

29. In the decision dated 23.2.2007 in Crl.M.C. No.7262/2006 Neera
Singh vs. State and Ors. a learned Single Judge of this Court had pains to note
as under:-
?4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent
on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is
made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of
income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist
upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns
and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry
Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not
been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of
Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the
bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to
the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule (2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible
after the marriage;

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain:

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and

(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or
bridegroom, a description of such relationship.

(d) shall be signed by both the brides and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrate should take cognizance of the
offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever
allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after
demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under
the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be
drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage
which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to
the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is
verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are
not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while
entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statements of the
complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints
are pouring in.?
30. Admittedly, neither complainant nor her family members have
complied with Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents
to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules 1985.
31. Since allegations in the complaint are to the effect that
jewellery and gifts worth crores were given by the parents and relatives of the
complainant, instant case would require a prior investigation by the
investigating officer before petitioners are made to account for the gifts,
whether at all the family of the complainant had the means to shower gifts of
such magnitude.
32. I note that the husband of the complainant is paying to her a
monthly maintenance of Rs.1 lakh.
33. Learned counsel for the State did not urge that the petitioners
are not cooperating with the IO.
34. The special circumstances of the case may be summarized:-
(a) Marriage is a love marriage and took place at Dubai. There is prima
facie evidence that marriage expenses were borne by the in-laws of the
complainant.

(b) The young couple took up separate residence at Dubai and stayed their
after the marriage till they came to India to celebrate their first Deepawali
festival. The complainant stayed with her in-laws for about 10 days. The
couple departed for their honeymoon.
(c) Allegations in the FIR are primarily directed against the husband.
Prima facie it appears to be a case of temperamental difference between the
husband and the wife.
(d) There are no allegations of dowry demand against the mother-in-law.
Allegation against her is of retaining the jewellery gifted by her parents as
stated by the complainant to be in the value of over Rs.2 crores. There is no
evidence that jewellery of such magnitude was gifted.
(e) Allegations of dowry demand against the father-in-law only relate to
transfer of ownership rights of 2 floors in a property at Sunder Nagar in the
name of the husband of the complainant. The allegation is of a general nature.
The time, date and month of demand has not been specified.
(f) The couple separated at Dubai. The petitioners did not have a joint
residence with the complainant and thus could not be in possession of her
jewellery.
35. Case is thus made to admit petitioners to anticipatory bail.
While so directing, I am conscious of the failed compromise talks before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge but I cannot ignore the fact that proceedings
for bail cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. I find prima facie
justification of the petitioners that their younger son was briefing the counsel
and was informing the counsel what was being consented to by the son of the
petitioners. If the son of the petitioners back tracks from his commitment,
petitioners cannot be faulted with.
36. I additionally note that the complainant is being paid a
monthly maintenance of Rs.1 lakh by her husband.
37. Petition stands disposed of directing that on the petitioners
surrendering their passport to the Investigating Officer and cooperating at the
inquiry to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, in the event of the
petitioners being arrested by the IO, the petitioners would be released on bail
by the IO on the petitioners furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ – each
with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO in the
above captioned FIR.
38. Needless to state, the petitioners would join the investigation
as and when required by the IO.
39. Copy of the order be supplied dasti to learned counsel for the
petitioners.

21st August, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
dk

— In saveindianfamily@ yahoogroups. com, “Arnab” <arnab221@.. .> wrote:
>
> Ranjana Kumari in her interviews always mentions that please exchange the list of articles that were exchanged during the marraige . What sort of list is it exactly and is this a legal document like an affidavit signed by the girl and her family ?
>
> The same also must be given by the girl and her family . Right ?
>
> This will definitely resolve the streedhan type issues where article lists are bloated all the time.
>
> I know that 498A can still be misused , but does someone has or has any recommendations what this sort of list must contain or what must be the format of this document ? I need to pass this info to a friend who is getting marraied to protect himself from later issues if any on streedhan .
>

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group Messages in this topic (2)
Recent Activity:     * New Members 18     * New Files 5
Visit Your Group Start a New Topic
***SIF*******IMP. NOTICE ********SIF******
To reduce the number of emails you get from the group, you can change over  to digest mode of email delivery(Which compiles 25 emails into one email, there by reducing the emails per day from this group), to do this follow these instructions:

Go to: Edit Membership on the main page of group or click
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saveindianfamily/join
Then change the Message Delivery option to “Daily Digest”

or send an email to saveindianfamily-digest@yahoogroups.com

******SIF***********SaveIndianFamily**********SIF**********
Delhi: 9810611534, 9911119113
Mumbai: 9224335577, 9869323538
Bangalore: 9845143724, 9342853272
Kolkata: 9830151555, 9830927619
Chennai: 9884607376, 9941012958
Hyderabad: 09848280354, 9989146466
More helplines(updated) at:
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/contact-us/helplines.html and
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/contact-us/activists.html

It was the end of the day when a police officer parked his car in front of the station.  As he gathered his equipment, his K-9 partner, Jake, was barking.  As he glanced back, he noticed a little boy staring in the side window.  “Is that a dog you got back there?”  he asked.   “It sure is,” replied the officer.  Puzzled, the boy looked at him and then towards the back of the car.   Finally he said, ‘What’d he do?’

As we travel through life, we will each come across situations that will lead us to assume the worst of people — but remember, things may not be as they appear. 

www.bibledonate.org and www.fivesimplesteps.org

HAPPINESS

The Epicurean Approach

By

VIKRAM KARVE

Musings on the Art of Happiness

HAPPINESS & PLEASURE

Are Happiness and Pleasure correlated?

They say:

1.  Pleasure is Quantitative; Happiness is Qualitative.

2.   Happiness is a lifelong goal.

3.       Happiness requires cognitive judgment.

4.       Pleasure is not essential to achieving happiness – here I do not agree. I feel happiness and pleasure are not mutually exclusive; in fact genuine pleasure can be the source of much happiness.

No philosopher has better explored the distinction between happiness and pleasure than Epicurus, a Greek Philosopher of the Third Century BC. Epicurus (341-270 BC) espoused a strategy for achieving genuine human happiness by emphasizing the delights of the mind (over which a person has control) rather than the delights derived from material things (which are so often beyond one’s personal control).

Epicurus’ name survives in the team “epicurean” which is used to refer to someone with elevated tastes and a lifestyle centred on pleasure. However, if you peruse his philosophy thoroughly, you will realize that Epicurus counsels a way of life very different from what the popular use of the term “pleasure” implies.

You may feel that Epicurean philosophy champions the pursuit of pleasure as the supreme goal of life, but this does not mean the unrestrained pursuit of excesses of any kind. Instead, Epicurus argues for a life of sober restrain and moderation in all things. The pleasures Epicurus recommends are those that are easy to achieve and simple in nature. The prolonged pursuit of pleasure is best achieved by restraint and enlightened choice.

It may be the prudent to moderate our single minded pursuit of “outward” success and achievement, the mindless acquisition of material possessions and accumulation of wealth, tendencies to showing off and ostentation, conspicuous consumption and lavish unrestrained pleasures; and focus more on the more authentic “inner” pleasures of life such as happy family life, enriching relationships, cultivating the mind and intellect, enjoying the pleasures of friends and companions, and living on the higher plane.

Epicureanism does not advocate the wanton pursuit of pleasure. Also, you must remember that pleasures and pains of the mind are of greater importance than those of the body. Epicurus set forth a strategy for achieving authentic human happiness by emphasizing the delights of the mind (over which a person has control) rather than the delights derived from material things (which are so often beyond one’s personal control). The fundamental premise is that presence of pleasure is synonymous with the absence of pain.

Genuine happiness emanates from pleasures that are easy to achieve and simple in nature. If you have only a few things, we will enjoy them more than if you had many things, and if you do not become used to rich and expensive foods, then simple fare, which is easier to obtain will satisfy you more.

In a nutshell: “The Art of Happiness is in keeping your Pleasures Mild”.

And how do you keep your pleasures mild?

DESIRE & PLEASURE

Are pleasures in any way linked to satisfying your desires?

There are two different types of pleasures:

1. “Moving” Pleasures

1. “Static” Pleasures

“Moving” pleasures occur when one is in the process of satisfying a desire – like eating delicious food when one is hungry.

These pleasures involve an active enjoyable titillation of the senses which most people call “pleasure”.

However, Epicurus says that after one’s desires have been satisfied, like suppose you are fully satiated after eating a heart meal; this state of satiety, a state of no longer being in need or want, is itself pleasurable. Epicurus calls this “static” pleasure, and says that these static pleasures are the best pleasures.

Hence, Epicurus says that there is no intermediate state between pleasure and pain. When one has unfulfilled desires, this is painful, and when one no longer has unfulfilled desires, this steady state is the most pleasurable of all. There is no intermediate state between pleasure and pain – either your desires are fulfilled or they are not.

Epicurus also distinguishes between physical and mental pleasures and pains. Physical pleasures and pains concern only the present, whereas mental pleasures and pains also encompass the past (fond memories of past pleasure or regret over past pain or mistakes) and the future (confidence or fear about what will occur).

The greatest destroyer of happiness is anxiety about the future, especially the fear of death. If you can banish fear about the future, and face the future with confidence that one’s desires will be satisfied, then you can attain a most exalted state of tranquillity.

This we see that the key to happiness is the effective management of your desires – Desire Management.

DESIRE MANAGEMENT

There is a close connection between pleasure and desire-satisfaction.

If pleasure results from getting what you want (desire-satisfaction) and pain from not getting what you want (desire-frustration), then there are two strategies you can pursue with respect to any given desire: you can either strive to fulfil the desire, or you can try to eliminate the desire.

Epicurus advocates the second strategy of scaling down your desires to the basic minimum which can easily be satisfied.

Epicurus distinguishes between three types of desires:

1.      Natural and necessary desires,

2.      Natural but non-necessary desires,

3.    “Vain and Empty” or unnatural and unnecessary desires.

How we tackle each of these three types of desires determines our tendency to happiness [or unhappiness].

Examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, health, sense of security and basic physical needs, cravings which will necessarily lead to greater pain if they are not fulfilled.

These basic desires are easy to satisfy yet difficult to eliminate (they are ‘hard-wired’ into human beings naturally) and bring great pleasure when satisfied (“Happiness begins at the stomach”).

Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied.

Epicurus says that you should try to fulfil natural and necessary desires.

Vain, unnatural and unnecessary desires include desires for excessive power, wealth, fame, and other egoistic ambitions which have all the trappings of status and prestige.

Vain desires are difficult to satisfy, in part because they have no natural limit. If one desires wealth or power, no matter how much one gets, it is always possible to get more, and the more one gets, the more one wants. These desires are not natural to human beings, but inculcated by society and by false beliefs about what we need; (e.g.) believing that being very powerful or wealthy or famous will guarantee us happiness. In fact, Opulence attracts thieves, and power and fame attract sycophants.

Epicurus says that such vain and empty desires should be eliminated.

An example of a natural but non-necessary desire is the desire for luxury food. Although food is needed for survival, one does not need rich expensive gourmet food to survive. Thus, despite his hedonism, Epicurus advocates a surprisingly ascetic way of life. Although you shouldn’t spurn extravagant foods if they happen to be available, becoming dependent on such food ultimately leads to unhappiness.

These natural but non-necessary desires are those cravings that do not necessarily lead to greater pain if they are not fulfilled. These desires are typically recreational in nature: Sexual gratification, aesthetic desires, entertainment, pleasant conversation, the arts, sports, travel etc.

In the case of natural but non-necessary desires you must approach life as a banquet. Think of your life as if it were a banquet where you would behave graciously, when dishes are passed to you, extend your hand and help yourself to a moderate portion. If a dish should pass you by, enjoy what is already on your plate. And if a dish hasn’t being passed to you yet, patiently wait for your turn.

To paraphrase Epicurus, “If you wish to make a man wealthy, don’t give him more money; rather, reduce his desires”.

By eliminating the pain caused by unfulfilled desires, and the anxiety that occurs because of the fear that one’s desires will not be fulfilled in the future, the wise Epicurean attains tranquillity, and thus happiness.

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009

Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.

http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve

Appetite for a Stroll

http://books.sulekha.com/book/appetite-for-a-stroll/default.htm

vikramkarve@sify.com

Pilgrimage Statistics

Consecutive Days Riding: 43                              Consecutive Days Blogging: 44

Today’s Mileage:  10                                           Total Trip Mileage: 365

Visitor Center

As I ride the bike I recognize that we are quickly approaching the west coast of Florida.  We will visit Marco Island in coming days and then head towards Naples and our next Pilgrimage Site.  Our travels today take us past the Collier Seminole State Park so I will include photos from the park for your enjoyment.

Red Shouldered Hawk

Yesterday I spoke about the “levels of analysis” we may use when talking about spiritual and religious matters.  In my Psychology of Religion class I steer my students away from the usual “who has the right/proper form” questions towards these questions: how do religions and spiritual systems attempt to meet individual and community needs? How are different religions meeting the same functions with similar processes?”

Canoe trail

Today I’d like to speak briefly on the topic of morality from a functional perspective. Specifically  I would like to address the question:  how do we judge morality? I often hear people speak of other people’s behavior as being moral or not moral.  This is a deceptive simplification of the issue, we call dichotomous thinking.  It’s not that one person has a set of morals and the other is totally without.  The real issue is that the one person’s behavior (the actor) falls outside of what the other (the viewer) sees as moral.  However, in all likelihood, it fits the definition of “moral” held by the actor.  While one person might view going on a gay date as immoral, the person going on the date may judge it as the moral thing to do as they are acting in a congruent way between their feelings and actions.  For that person to deny and not act on their homosexuality, would  be for them, a deceptive and immoral action. I believe if we step back and take a functional approach to analyze conflict laden situations, we will see that both individuals have morals and both use them to judge their actions and choices. It’s in the content of their morals where the differences exist.

Primrose with visitor

In my current academic research I have come across the works of several Social psychologists in working  the field of Moral Foundations Theory. Recently the authors, Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian Nosek, have reported finding that liberal and conservative individuals base their moral judgment and decisions on different sets of moral foundations. 

Moral Foundations Theory hypothesizes that there are five sets of “moral intuitions” which people use to make their moral judgments.  These include: 1) Does the action harm another and is it caring (Harm/Care),2) Is the action Fair towards the other individual and promote reciprocity (Fairness/Reciprocity), 3) Does the action fit with a loyalty towards one’s group (Ingroup/Loyalty), 4) Does the action show respect for prevailing authority (Authority/Respect), 5) Does the action fall within one’s views of what is a pure or sanctified behavior (Purity/Sanctity). Their research indicates that while individuals tend to use all five of these foundations, clear difference exist between individuals who rate themselves as liberals, who make primary use of Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity, versus conservatives, who make more or less equal us of all five foundations.

Salt Marsh Mallow

These findings point to and highlight the source of conflict between individuals on the opposite ends of political and religious discussions.  Liberals look first and foremost at the impact a choice or decision has on minority members of the society. Conservatives give significantly more weight to tradition, established authority figures and ideas of “right and wrong” as defined in sacred texts.

These authors note: “Western societies are growing more diverse and with diversity comes differing ideals about how to best regulate selfishness and about how we ought to live together.” Political and religious issues overlap in areas like abortion, separation of church and state, waging “just” wars, and gay rights issues, to name a few.  Whenever I hear a discussion concerning political and religious issues among individuals from opposite ends of the political spectrum, I remind myself that we all have morals and that we strive to live by them.  While this recognition may not help us find a common ground on questions of content and form, it will at least keep us focused on the other issue: the shared need to find a basis for our living together as a community.

What are your moral foundations?  Go to www.yourmorals.org and complete the online questionnaire to find out!

Sunset over the park

Thanks to the Florida State Parks Service for the wonderful photos.  Visit www.floridastateparks.org for more information.

My friend Mick Hotrum sent this video to me. It’s a wonderful message of life and hope for all of you that feel invisible – and that what you do is not noticed or appreciated.

Have a beautiful day full of God’s love!

When people know you have a mental illness and they know what has happened in the past it leads to problems.

Friends who have helped you out when you have needed help seem to have more problems moving on than me. They question me and watch for signs, they give little looks of concern when they think i cannot see them and i know they talk about me when i am not around analyzing my life etc. (not paranoia)

I am trying to move on i have good and bad days but nowhere near the darkness my life was a few months ago, I am looking at going back to work and have been accepted onto an access course with a view to doing a degree. I am truthful when i am not feeling too well in the hope that i won’t slip too far back

I find though that moving forward is difficult with my friends knowing my history. It feels that some of them are waiting for me to fail, 1 or 2 of them even seem to be keen to put me back where i was. Even if it is just to fill there desire to be my saviour (i use the term friend very loosely to those people) sometimes it almost feels like there is a jealousy from some as to the help i have recieved and the improvements that i have made. Some people who are not even friends but have a good knowledge of my history through other people sharing this with them deal with me with a distasteful look.

I am not imagining any of these facts, they pull me back, they remind me of a time that i would like to tuck into a corner. The situations are real though  and i am going to have  to learn to deal with it.

My mental illness has brought a stigma that is now part of me and i will have to learn to handle other peoples ignorance and prejudice and whatever else there need to understand or judgement brings to make sure that i keep moving forward.