Two Discernment Websites Cease Publication on the Web
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Sun, July 27, 2008
- Viewed 515
- (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 Thu, July 31, 2008
MIKE: you somehow have “the right” to ignore what scripture clearly teaches. . . . . Your reaction to what the Bible says is very telling sir.
RA: I didn’t react to what “the Bible says.” I reacted to your abuse of scripture, and I supplied supportive opinion from various commentaries. If you say I am wrong, then you say those commentaries wrong as well. If that is your contention, then so be it. But, sir, you do err, not knowing the scriptures.
______________
MIKE: If you were walking before the Lord for His glory alone you would not be seeking your own hence the self-protection.
RA: You, rather predictably, simply ignored: “This issue reaches FAR beyond just me and Ken Silva. It involves accountability, responsibility, the proper mode of apologetics/discernment, our conduct as Christians, what it means to strike our hand to an agreement (e.g., a TOS agreement), needless division in the Body of Christ.”
_______________
MIKE: I will pray for your repentance.
RA: Mike, please don’t. I have nothing in this situation for which to repent—except perhaps an underestimation of the depth of sin, hypocrisy, haughtiness of spirit, and a desire to remain unaccountable that permeates certain segments of the Christian community.
RAbanes
R. Abanes
Mike Ratliff on Thu, July 31, 2008
Richard,
No, you are incorrect in your interpretation of that passage. And if the commentaries you are using say what you are implying they say then I disagree with them as well. The context of this passage is conflict between brothers and it means that we do not settle these using secular means, period. Now that is what the Bible teaches sir and any attempt by you to try to justify what you are doing is in direct violation of this. So, as a brother in Christ I implore you to repent of this. It is unseemly. It is an affront to how Christians should interact even in conflict.
Please read this article by our brother Steve Camp on this. He does a fine job with the scripture here. Now Richard you better listen to this. You are trying to justify actions that are contrary to what the Bible teaches and that makes you guilty before its perfect oracle. Do you really want that sir or is that you don’t care?
By-the-way, I don’t misuse scripture. This is all in proper context.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Brian L. on Thu, July 31, 2008
Mike and Daniel,
What commentaries - written by scholars who have actually studied Greek and have a high view of Scripture - would you point to that would refute those Richard has quoted?
Also, it seems that Richard has quoted people of your persuasion who interpret the verse as these commentaries do.
Brian L.
Mike Ratliff on Thu, July 31, 2008
This is John Gill’s commentary on v7:
It does not matter what the conflict is. The only time believers need to end up in court against each other is if one has actually committed some crime against them which has never been proven in this case. It is implied, but not proven. Therefore, this contention should be handled within the Church amoungst brothers in Christ alone.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Richard Abanes on Thu, July 31, 2008
MIKE: The context of this passage is conflict between brothers and it means that we do not settle these using secular means, period
RA: Commentary quotes please, as well as any Greek language material that would support you contention that the proper interpretation “means that we do not settle these using secular means, period.”
That is NOT what the Greek says. Please exegete using proper biblical methods. I shall begin…..
In 1 Corinthians 6 the Greek word used in that passage is KRITERION, which according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, means:
“primarily a means of judging (akin to KRINO, to judge: English criterion), then a tribunal, law-court, or lawsuit, 1 Cor. 6:2 (last clause), for which see JUDGE, B, No. 3, Note (1)” (Vine’s, p. 623).
The reference given here to “JUDGE,” is the other Greek word used in 1 Corinthians—KRINO. Vine’s Expository Dictionary reads:
“(f) to be involved in a LAWSUIT, whether as a plaintiff, Matt 5:40; 1 Cor. 6:1; or as a defendant, Acts 23:6” (Vine’s, p. 620).
Again, I say to you, Ken Silva, and others who are abusing and misapplying this passage, for God’s sake, STOP IT.
R. Abanes
Richard Abanes on Thu, July 31, 2008
MIKE: than to go to law, especially before unjust persons and unbelievers,
RA: You don’t even understand the commentary you quoted! It says exactly what all my commentaries stated. You shouldn’t go to “THE LAW” and enter into a lawsuit IN the courts. This has NOThing whatsoever to do with complaining to an ISP about someone’s violation of their TOS.
This is getting a bit frightening, TBH. A few more steps in the extreme, and what we would see is exactly how evil/wicked men of centuries past used the Bible to justify the Crusades, slavery, and the witch hunts.
Do not pervert God’s Word. It says what it says. Do try to make it say something else, or cover other issues that are not covered in scripture.
R. Abanes
DanielR on Thu, July 31, 2008
Mike, read what you just wrote.
You’re saying that Christians should only go to court against each other AFTER it has been proven that a law has been broken. Court is where you would go to prove WHETHER a crime has been committed or not.
Disputes between Christian brothers should be resolved before going to court if possible, although in this case that does not seem likely. But if an actual crime (slander and/or libel) is alleged then court may be the only place to have it determined if a crime was actually committed.
Surely you’re not suggesting that if a dispute (alleged slander) between 2 brothers cannot be resolved within the church community then the slandered brother should just forgive the other (the slanderer) and allow him to go on slandering him?
rd on Thu, July 31, 2008
Justification for legal use…
Acts 16:37; Acts 22; Acts 25:10-11
Mike Ratliff on Thu, July 31, 2008
Richard,
Actually it isn’t KRITERION. It is Krino (Strongs Number 2919. It means to “properly, to distinguish, ie. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condmen, punish—avenge, conclude, condmn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.
How is what I said misusing this passage? Your going to the ISP with a letter saying that if they didn’t take action that you would turn it over to your lawyers is the same thing sir. That is dodging the issue.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
Richard Abanes on Thu, July 31, 2008
DR: Surely you’re not suggesting that if a dispute (alleged slander) between 2 brothers cannot be resolved within the church community then the slandered brother should just forgive the other (the slanderer) and allow him to go on slandering him?
RA: Oh, I think this is EXACTLY what he is saying—AS LONG AS the alleged “godly” and “righteous” ones are doing the slandering. In that case, indeed, everyone is to look the other way.
But if anyone not “in the camp” makes a mistake or says something that God’s “soldiers” find offensive, then it’s a completely different story, as was witnessed by the public lawsuit threat against me by Chris Rosebrough.
Was that acceptable, MIKE? What is your take on Chris Rosebrough’s threat against me in light of 1 Corinthians 6? Will you be publishing anything against his detestable act?
Again, I say, a significant number of “Christians” do not want to be accountable or responsible for what they do/say online. The Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) have been allowed to run rampant—attacking whom they wish, dividing the church, falsely accusing the brethren (including those in the Merging Church), spreading gossip/rumors, hurting those who are trusting them, etc. etc. etc. And they have remained accountable to NO ONE.
Richard Abanes
Page 7 of 7 pages « First < 5 6 7
Post a Comment