Two Discernment Websites Cease Publication on the Web
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Sun, July 27, 2008
- Viewed 514
- (100) comments so far
My read on this one?
Well… I think that Abanes should have probably tried to work with Ken to get the post taken down. I have no doubt that Ken would NOT have taken it down, but it would have been the right first step, rather than going directly to Ken’s web host. And once Ken got the notice from his web host, I think he should have tried to make the compromise happen.
But instead, it’s a big mess… one that’s causing more than a bit of insanity. Ken is crying ‘martyr’ and some of the watchdoggie sites are saying that this ‘first amendment issue’ will cause us all to eventually lose our right to criticize anyone online.
Bottom line: Ken’s article had been on his site since 2005. I really doubt that it was going to do Richard any harm. Plus, Ken’s readers aren’t going to buy Richard’s books, regardless (sorry, Richard!)
You can catch more on this at Richard Abane’s website; or an update over at Lighthouse Trails or Slice of Laodicea. I won’t link to them here, but you can find them easy enough if you’re that interested.
This SO MUCH takes away from everyone who is involved’s effectiveness. I hate that.
Your thoughts?
As many of you know, I've picked a few fights every now and then when I feel that some of the 'discerning ministry' have crossed the line. Well, it seems that two of my favorite watchdoggie websites are down, at least for now.
The first one is rather sad... and I would ask you to pray for Jim Bulbitz. Jim publishes OldTruth.com, and is having some serious health issues. In fact, he needs to have a liver transplant. He shares the news at OldTruth. His health issues will cause him to stop new posts, at least for then next few months. You know, I have disagreed with many of the things (probably most) that Jim has written over the years; and we've gone head to head on more than one occasion. But I can always say this: Jim was always open to dialouge, and always has treated me as a brother rather than a heretic. I appreciate that; and pray for you, Jim, that God will heal you completely.
The second website to go down happened this weekend. This was Ken Silva's "Apprising Ministries" website. Ken, on the other hand, is one of the more hard-nosed, confrontive bloggers I've run across on the net. Here's the short version of this one: Ken wrote a scathing piece on author Richard Abane in 2005 that Abane thought was slanderous. So, Richard contacted Ken's ISP and asked them to remove it from their servers. Ken's ISP looked at the article, and told Ken he'd have to remove that one post, or else they would take his site down complete. Ken, ever the martyr, decided to leave it up; and thus, lost his whole site (although I'm sure they're working frantically to get it back up on another host)...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
SAM: I am not going to argue with you because you refuse to take any accountability for your part in all this while claiming to be innocent party.
RA: No response to “Pleeeze tell me, therefore, where 1 Corinthians 6 says that we, as Christians, cannot sue heathen, godless, worldly institutions when a wrong has been committed.”
PREDICTABLE.
R. Abanes
Ken Silva on Tue, July 29, 2008
“I think this has shown the fruit of people like Silva.”
Well, isn’t that interesting.
The “slander/libel” article in question was concerning my thesis that, same as Richard has just assessed the conduct of these alleged emailers, Richard Abanes is “the fruit of” Rick Warren. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif
CS on Tue, July 29, 2008
Richard:
I went and read through Chris Rosebrough’s lawsuit threat, and I think that we can all agree that things are getting way out of hand and exceeding the bounds of what Christians should be doing.
With that in mind, I did forget to ask something beforehand in my original questions that I should have. Before you contacted Abanes’ ISP and asked for the removal of the article, did you contact Abanes specifically about this particular article and ask him to remove it? Or, did you go straight to the ISP?
—
CS
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
CS: Before you contacted Abanes’ ISP and asked for the removal of the article, did you contact Abanes specifically about this particular article and ask him to remove it? Or, did you go straight to the ISP?
RA: Huh? I am Abanes. LoL. Did you mean Silva? If so, I went straight to the ISP. That’s a common practice throughout cyberspace. I do NOT believe this was a Matthew 18 issue because it was not a private sin. This was a public, legal, TOS agreement issue.
I compare Silva’s offense to an employee acting inappropriately in an office setting, a waiter treating customers rudely, or a neighbor repeatedly playing loud music at 3AM.
No one would even think to apply Matthew 18 to notifying a company supervisor, or complaining to a restaurant manager, or calling a cop. The only difference being that Silva’s actions actually resulted in harm to my reputation.
Matthew 18 is about a brother who commits a sin against you privately. 1 Cor. 6 is about actually taking a brother to court (some say it extends to even threatening a brother with a lawsuit).
I violated NEITHER of these passages. Ken Silva and his supporters are spinning this into yet more false accusations and defamatory statements. It’s absolutely unbelievable.
Again, for the record, I did NOT:
1. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
2. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
3. Contact an attorney about threatening a lawsuit against Mr. Silva.
And yet, because of all the Internet articles by Silva and his supporters, it is now being flatly alleged that I threatened to sue Silva!! Again, unreal.
As we see above, when Silva’s supporters are challenged with the facts (see above interaction with Sam), they retreat. They have no response/answers. This is also why none of his supporters have taken up my challenge to show where Silva’s article actually critiqued my doctrine or biblical views on eschatology, theology, soteriology, or thanatology.
And yet, we have people declaring I shut down his website (again, wrong) because I didn’t want him criticizing my doctrine! This has gotten truly bizarre.
R. Abanes
Peter Hamm on Tue, July 29, 2008
I just read the whole she-bang at
http://richardabanes.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/lawsuit-response-abanes-to-chris-rosebrough/
Chris and Richard, you are together the image of how to handle disputes. Thanks for the object lesson.
CS on Tue, July 29, 2008
Richard:
Sorry for bungling the last names there. Mr. Silva joined the conversation, so it threw me off. D’oh on my part.
I read through your points concerning not speaking with Silva directly and instead going straight to the ISP. I understand your reasoning. My personal preference would have been for you to have gone to him personally first. I know the etiquette of cyberspace and have seen similar requests to other ISPs, but I would have gone to the potential offender first, in private, in the hopes of fixing things. I would have given 1 Corinthians 6 for giving the benefit of the doubt.
I was curious about something else you said. You claimed, “The only difference being that Silva’s actions actually resulted in harm to my reputation.” Could you please quantify how his article and actions have defamed you? Do you have concrete evidence of how this hurt your reputation?
Thanks again for the conversation.
—
CS
Brian L. on Tue, July 29, 2008
Richard,
Thanks for answering my initial question (that others has posited as well) regarding why a 2005 article was receiving so much attention from you in 2008.
I appreciate it very much and I agree with you about this whole deal.
CS - I got the movie reference! Almost fell out of my chair imagining Bill Murray saying it in the Mayor’s office…
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
KS: The “slander/libel” article in question was concerning my thesis that, same as Richard has just assessed the conduct of these alleged emailers, Richard Abanes is “the fruit of” Rick Warren.
RA: Let’s stop playing games, Ken. Please point out in that article where you critique my theology, eschatology, soteriology, or thanatology. And you, I might add, have used this beautifully to keep spreading false accusations and misleading statements. I congratulate you. Too bad you also had to break the law to do it, and are hiding behind scripture (misapplied) to shield yourself from accountability and responsibility. Shameful, Ken. Shameful. And, now that you’re here, I ask you the same question from which Sam ran away:
You say I threatened a lawsuit? Well, for the sake of discussion — Cool! Let’s say I did (although I technically didn’t). Who was that email addressed to? Answer: IPOWER. NOT YOU.
So if anyone was threatened with a lawsuit, it was IPOWER!!! It was not you because that email was not to you! Pleeeze tell me, therefore, where 1 Corinthians 6 says that we, as Christians, cannot sue heathen, godless, worldly institutions when a wrong has been committed. I eagerly await your exegesis.
________________
CS: I would have given 1 Corinthians 6 for giving the benefit of the doubt.
RA: See above. 1 Cor. 6 is nowhere near being applicable here. I did NOT: 1. File a lawsuit against Mr. Silva; 2. Threaten to file a lawsuit against Mr. Silva; 3. Contact an attorney about beginning a lawsuit against Mr. Silva. All much to Silva’s sensational spin (again, nice work, Ken, although I really don’t think Jesus is at all pleased).
CS: You claimed, “The only difference being that Silva’s actions actually resulted in harm to my reputation.” Could you please quantify how his article and actions have defamed you? Do you have concrete evidence of how this hurt your reputation?
RA: Yes. Private emails that I was receiving, coupled with Google ranking for that article, and comments that I had received from various parties to whom I had spoken.
Because of my stand on Rick Warren, there has been a concerted effort going on to literally destroy my reputation in hopes of silencing me. This is what is most ironic, given the accusations that it is really ME trying to do the silencing. No, that is not the case. They are trying to do the silencing.
And for proof of that, I offer the story of what Lighthouse Trails tried to do to me and my publisher back when my book about Rick Warren was first going to be released back in 2005. See my article Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda
The many articles that have been posted about me are NOT critiques of my doctrine: theology, thanatology, eschatology, or soteriology. It is all personal. And when they do talk about issues surrounding my doctrine, they utterly have been misrepresenting it. A case in point would be the ludicrous statements being made about how I have been seeking to create a synthesis between Mormonism and Christianity!!!
This false accusation, in direct contradiction to my books on Mormonism, has been posted all over the Internet!! How might this influence people looking for information on Mormonism to use in ministry? How might this cause people to think about my doctrines and views if they read those slanderous pieces about me? It’s not hard to figure out.
Richard Abanes
R. Abanes
Ken Silva on Tue, July 29, 2008
RA: “You say I threatened a lawsuit?”
KS: Did I?
RA: “All much to Silva’s sensational spin (again, nice work, Ken, although I really don’t think Jesus is at all pleased).”
KS: Uh-oh; looks like slander to me. Can Richard prove this? No. The fact is I’ve had zero to do with what others have written and until today I have said nothing publicly since I brought the ?lawsuit? before the Body of Christ.
CS on Tue, July 29, 2008
Richard:
Thanks again for the reply. And thank you for explaining the details about how things have been behind the scenes. I’ll have to learn how Google Rankings works one of these days.
Like I said about 1 Corinthians 6, that was a personal preference. I can see your point of view and understand why you did what you did. I would have contacted Silva directly, first, in hopes of remediation, but that was your call. You had experience with him beforehand, and knew how he was likely to react.
No worries.
—
CS
An occasional lurker on Tue, July 29, 2008
I haven’t been to this website in about a year, but I used to check it out sometimes. I was directed here from another site.
I finally broke down and read the offending article that caused the Silva/Abanes issue.
I have found many of Silva’s articles in the past to be well-written and useful for doctrine.
This one in question, wasn’t.
There was, indeed, no commentary on doctrine at all. The jist of the article, from my opinion after reading, was that Abanes owning some secular music CD’s, proved that he really wasn’t of God.
Which begs the question in my mind, is the way into heaven, avoiding buying secular music CD’s?
I personally see why the article was offensive to Abanes, even if I don’t agree with Abanes on several things, and I personally believe that Abanes was very justified by wanting it removed.
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
KEN SILVA,
It appears that you yourself shut down your own website. Is this true?
Of course, ultimately, yes it was indeed you. But the only question is: Did you do it pro-actively BEFORE your deadline, or did you just let the deadline hit you, which in turn cause IPOWER to pull the plug. I quote from http://christianresearchnetwork.info :
“Ken shut down his site not IPOWER. I actually did the RESEARCH as implied in the title of this here site.”
“. . . the very nice person I spoke with mentioned that IPOWER does not act on the advice of third parties in regards to the nature of any clients website.”
“While IPOWER would not give me the specifics of the Apprising.org account the person I spoke with implicitly stated “We will not cancel or shut down any site based on the recommendation of a third party”
“I just got off the phone with IPower and they denied that they would have taken any action against Silva without a legal mandate to do so.”
And stop playing martyr, Ken. All you had to to was remove that one article, or bring it in line with having it be actual critique of my doctrinal views. You still have nothing in that article even remotely close to statements about my doctrinal views.
IPOWER made their decision—i.e, you violated the TOS agreement into which you had entered (in their estimation). Now, you put it up again, despite your clear knowledge of my feelings, and go so far as to couple it with the posting of a private email in violation of the laws of the land (I suggest you re-read Romans 13:1-7). Sad.
R. Abanes
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
KS: Uh-oh; looks like slander to me. Can Richard prove this? No.
RA: “RICHARD ABANES TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES OVER DEFAMATION-LIBEL?” (apprising.org). There is your proof. That article is a sensational spin, inaccurate and explosive, designed to inflame the masses.
You have plenty of questions that I have given you to answer here. Stop responding like a 10-year-old and show us what Dr. Walter Martin (your alleged mentor—not) has taught you about critiquing someone’s doctrinal views:
“If Ken Silva wishes to place another article up titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES,” which actually critiques my theology, then my all means, I welcome it.”
This is from
R. Abanes
Richard Abanes on Tue, July 29, 2008
Oh, BTW, Ken, your little “?” at the end of that sensational title has been LOST on virtually everyone. You are a clever one. And you do know your audience. Again, kudos to you.
R. Abanes
RobertW on Tue, July 29, 2008
I think Sam is right. In fact, this whole “implied” legal action stuff reminds me of how the ACLU bullies school districts who lack the constitutional acumen to oppose them in these trumped-up church-state issues and they fold like cheap suits.
Page 3 of 7 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment