The world's smallest violinBefore I write anything else on this particular topic, I would like to offer thanks to the Lord for what appears to be a long answer to prayer – that Ken Silva has apparently decided to have the Apprising “Ministries” (two lies for the price of one) website deleted by his ISP. With a few more answered prayers like this one, CRN.Info would either have no reason to exist, or would need a complete shift in focus…

Secondly, I really had no desire to write this article, but since I’m getting some feedback that “Silence can be taken as approval”, as the manager of this site I will take a few moments to comment on the recent row between Richard Abanes and Ken Silva. Since I really didn’t want to write it, you can count on the tone to be somewhat grumpy (having returned from a long week of vacation with a need for sleep). I would also specifically note that, while I am delighted that the Apprising “Ministries” website has been taken down, I take no delight in any personal misfortune that may be suffered as a result of it.

Here’s the Reader’s Digest Version:

Mr. Silva wrote a piece in 2005 that Richard Abanes and Rick Warren. In 2008, RA wrote a letter to Silva’s ISP about the article, asking for it to be removed to avoid having him consult his lawyers, as it was in violation of their Terms of Service. Silva’s ISP asked him to remove the offending article within 48 hours or have his blog deleted. Ken refused to alter the article, instead choosing the ill-fitting mantle of a martyr. True to their word, it appears that Ken’s ISP deleted his blog per his decision. (And there was much rejoicing)

I have to say, there’s enough legalism and cat-fighting in this tempest in a teapot to last both parties well into the next decade. There are several of principles at work here -

First, the principle of bearing false witness and slander. Regardless of legal technicalities of jurisdictional definitions of slander/libel, speaking an untruth, purposely misrepresenting someone else – especially a brother in Christ – is sin and is slander. As many have pointed, out, this is different than holding differing opinions. However, it WOULD include purposely misrepresenting someone’s opinions via prooftexting quotes, contextomy and other similar means.

With only a brief reading of the article which offended, I have no idea what material Abanes believed was libelous, nor (at least in the reading I’ve done thus far) does he seem to be willing to specifically identify the information. With that said, though, it is likely that even an objective simpleton could identify dozens (if not hundreds) of examples of actual slander/libel on the Apprising “Ministries” site, whether it be Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Rick Warren or one of his other frequent targets of derision. Score: RA -1; KS -1

Next is the principal contained in Matthew 18 – when one brother feels he has been wronged by another to first approach that brother before seeking other mediation. RA did not do so in this case, based on his assumption (which I have no doubt is a correct one) that Ken would give him a proverbial sharp stick in the eye for his troubles. However, because he ought to love his neighbor, and be charitable (per I Cor 13:7), the biblical principal of first confrontation ought to have been followed. However, it ought to be noted that Ken’s entire “ministry” is pretty much a public mooning of Matthew 18, specifically self-exempted by Ken on many an occasion. Additionally, rather than follow the course of Matthew 18 in response to Abanes, Ken unsurprisingly decided to play the part of the drama queen/martyr by needlessly falling on his sword. Score: RA -2; KS -2

Next we have the principal of solving brotherly disputes within the church, rather than through civil/legal authorities, found in I Corinthians 6. Abanes has exempted himself from this via some legalistic weaseling (he only threatened non-specific legal action, he didn’t actually use it), in complete avoidance of the spirit of the principal. Now, while at least one of Ken’s supporters has absolutely no leg to stand on with this particular principal, I’m not familiar with Ken siccing (or threatening to sic) lawyers on anyone. At the same time, I’m unfamiliar with any mediating authority within the church to which Silva would submit for such dispute resolution. Score: RA: -3; KS: -2

Finally (though I’m pretty sure I could find more, it’s getting late) we have the principal of submission to earthly authority per Romans 13:1. In this particular regard, I’m not familiar with Abanes violating this particular principal in the matter at hand. At the same time, we have Ken who is unwilling to observe the TOS he was in submission to by having iPower host his blog. Additionally, he appears to be unwilling to abide by copyright law regarding the posting of third-party email, as well. Score: RA: -2; KS: -3

So, in regards to both parties and their actions in the current matter, it’s pretty safe to declare both to be losers.

As for the First Amendment, which some have wailed and cried upon in this matter, there was no real applicability. Had Silva temporarily deleted the article and sought mediation, or had legal proceedings ensued, I am confident that the freedom of speech would have been upheld in the end.

In the larger scheme of things, though, weighing the pettiness and short duration of the matter vs. the deletion of the Apprising “Ministries” blog, I think we can affirm that all things work for the good for those that love the Lord, and that Christendom is much better for the “loss” (even if it is only temporary) of the cesspool of hatred, slander and legalistic hubris that was apprised, found wanting and deleted.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm and is filed under Commentary, Hypocrisy, Ken Silva, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

207 Comments(+Add)

1   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 26th, 2008 at 11:50 pm

I’m sure he’ll be back up in no time but praise God that it’s down tonight.

2   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

C?N is down too?

3   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 26th, 2008 at 11:55 pm

No – I can pull it up…

4   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Yeah, I don’t know what happened there. Two times, it didn’t come up, then it did. Oh well.

5   Aaron    
July 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am

I think I just heard a massive “ZOMGWTFBBQ?!?!?” throughout the entire ODM blogosphere…

Start digging out those flak jackets, people, it’s gonna get messy for the next few days. Entertaining, though. :) Not in a sense that it’s entertaining to watch people grumble and freak out over opinions or responsibility to speak generously, but in the sense of watching certain people treat this as if it’s a HUUUUUGE blow to the spread, education, edification, and glorification of the Gospel.

Anyways, I’ll be in my war bunker, huddled with my hard hat and radio, listening for the all-clear siren so that we can get back to important things, like worshiping Jesus and countering false heretics that the general public actually knows of. You know, people on Oprah, Mormons, prosperity gospel preachers, that sort of thing (Which Mr. Abanes does a lot of… hmm…).

Maybe I’m just naive since I’m still in school. Or maybe because I have a near-hatred of politics. Or maybe because I dread the upcoming onslaught of people touting Apprising.org as “a respectable ministry with worthwhile fruit”.

Who knows? Maybe I’m just an angry person in general. I’m pretty sure Calvin was too, so I might be on the right track. :)

-Aaron

6   merry    
July 27th, 2008 at 12:33 am

“I may not like what CRN.info or VerumSerum or the several other sites are saying about me, but they have a right to their opinions, and I’d fight for their right to have a blog.”
~Ingrid Schlueter

“Love . . . keeps no record of wrongs.”
~1 Corinthians 13:5

Situations like this is why I refuse to “take sides” in Christianity. I personally would vote for a complete shift in focus of today’s splintered Christianity . . . a shift towards unity, unconditional love and unheard of forgiveness, settling matters outside of court, and always putting ourselves in others points of view. This has nothing to do with the American Constition; Chrisitianity should have nothing to do with the American Constitution.

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 2:00 am

I don’t care if Ken has a website, I do care that he is slandering his brothers and sisters in Christ and desires to harm others.

I know he does not see he is doing this, yet, if he did not think that he was not guilty at all, I think his site would still be up. Yet, it seems that most of the ODM’s miss that by the worlds standards (which I see as much lower than God’s) it was seen that his site was libel and was after all slanderous.

I do feel bad for Ken that he has to close up shop, yet I hope that when he does come back he will revamp his ministry to be a ministry and not an assassin blog. I also hope that when he comes back he can be an edifier of the Body.

Ken, if you read this, my prayers for God’s best are always with you. My hope is that you grow in grace from this experience.
iggy

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 2:49 am

I have spoken out about some of Ken’s tone and verbiage, however that is not the question at hand. Mr. Abanes was and is completely wrong and refuses to accept responsibility. The overall question is also can any ISP be petitioned to remove offensive material by anyone other than an “award winning” author? How about the post here abot Bentley, can he claim libel and demand it be removed?

This needs to be a lesson learned by all of us. Every writer here, past and present, has gossiped and slandered and libeled in private and sometimes in some public comment, and yet where does God the Holy Spirit get to minister? If we submit to the secular words police about one thing then we are submitting to them in general.

Will a message about the exclusivity of Christ, or the sinfulness of homosexuality, or the wrongness of Islam, or the sin of divorce, and a thousand other things be considered offensive enough to some so that the server demands their removal? This particular issue is not about Ken, this is about the church and how we deal with issues.

Mr. Abanes should have withdrawn his request, but he remained not only defiant, but ridiculously suggested he never actually sues Ken as if that exonerated him from guilt. What if someone who isn’t wn award winning author with a ton of books and with Rick Warren’s influence contacted the ISP, would they have succombed to their pressure.

Of course Ken could have taken the article down and rewritten it or petitioned the server or whatever, but the fact remains, the action By Richard was unbiblical and despicable. To any “objective simpleton” Mr. Abanes is obsessed with defending Rick Warren from even the slightest criticism, and his comments sometimes seem to reflect that obsession.

No one can legitimately accuse me of being partial to Ken, but he deserves to be treated fairly regardless of how unfairly we might believe he treats others. Our squabbles within the church must NEVER be exposed to the world on purpose, and when it comes to words and opinions we should handle it as brothers. If this is how we as followers of Jesus Christ are to deal with language we do not care for, than take down this site and begin petitioning all the individual servers on the sites we do not care for. W e can use the same carnal leverage that Hugh Hefner, ACLU, and all the rest of the teeeming mass uses and we’ll blend nicely from under our bushel.

This entire thing is wrong and I predict Mr. Abanes will continue to use epoquence and his elongated literary style of question and answer to provide a well crafted defense of his actions. But this situation is where Ken’s ctritics within the body will be tested as to their objective Biblical position or if their disgust with Ken’s writings will trump dispassioned Biblical interpretation.

9   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 3:07 am

This is part of Richard’s communication with the server:

“Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I respectfully request that IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM remove this particular article from it’s servers, and notify Ken Silva to cease and desist the posting similar articles. I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible.”

Here is what Richard said on his blog:

“I did not threaten IPOWER with legal action. I asked them to review a single article on Ken Silva’s website that I found not only objectionable, but also a violation of their TOS agreement. “

That is utterly disingenuous and obviously misleading. His communication to the server contained a cloaked reference to legal action based upon his interpretation of their “rules”. If I was a Mormon, I could threaten legal action against Richard’s apologetices, and also against Chris Lyons for posting the South Park cartoon that malisciously slandered and lampooned the prophet who I happen to respect and follow.

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 3:15 am

And this is what Richard has written on his blog about J. R. Rowling:

At MOST, all we are being told by Rowling is that has been “struggling” with “religious belief” and that these particular beliefs are connected in some way to her views of “what happens after death and so on.” There is NOTHING explicitly in this remark that details, or even indirectly indicates, Rowling is a “Christian” in the sense of actually embracing Christian beliefs. A Buddhist might interpret this as her making references to Buddhist beliefs, or a Muslim might just as easily interpret it as referring to beliefs of Islam. All religious systems have notions about life after death. For all we know, she has embraced a bit of Christian ideas, some new Age concepts, and a little bit of something else. She never elaborates.

His exposes of people and cults are filled with verbiage like this. Rowling claims to be a Christian, Arbanes strongly claims she probably isn’t, so why can he say things like that and Ken cannot step over the line without losing his website? This is a time where even the most ardent of doctrinal enemies must stand as one not just to avoid an avalanche of such things across the board, but because this is not how we are commanded to act one to another, even if one is not acting like he or she should.

11   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 7:05 am

“Before I write anything else on this particular topic, I would like to offer thanks to the Lord for what appears to be a long answer to prayer – that Ken Silva has apparently decided to have the Apprising “Ministries” (two lies for the price of one) website deleted by his ISP. With a few more answered prayers like this one, CRN.Info would either have no reason to exist, or would need a complete shift in focus…”

Chris, how is that not shandenfreude, while also suggesting some inside information concerning divine motive? It also assumes an unsusbstantiated power of your own prayers. Remember, Fred Phelps blog is still up. These kinds of things bring out the worst in us, and I have seen even serious infighting among those who usually agree with Ken and Mrs. Schlueter but now hold a grudge because of the Ray Comfort situation.

I am sure some have had a passing thought as to divine motive in the Old Truth situation as well. These are times for gracious restraint, not spiritual proclamations.

12   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:06 am

Chris, how is that not shandenfreude

Rick,

1) I completely disagree with Abanes’ actions and subsequent defense in this particular matter, and I do not disagree with your assessment of his actions in this matter.

2) Ken had a number of avenues which he could have pursued. In this matter, he chose to be a drama queen, so the results are not “misfortune” – they are the natural consequences of a choice he made. To suggest the deletion of Apprising is misfortune is to remove Ken’s culpability in the matter.

3) While iPower seems to have the tendency, like that of many small ISP’s, to buckle when anyone says the word “lawyer”, most large ISP’s recognize freedom of speech and typically won’t buckle until lawsuits actually materialize and appear to have substantiation. In this particular matter, iPower seems to have acted from a stance of cowardice.

4) While I do note that this appears to be an answer to prayer, I believe it is fully within the realm of possibility that it may not have been.

13   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am

Rick,

The heart of this site is being exposed by the unfortunate situation of another. The scripture clearly states that we should not take joy in the downfall of a brother, that we should not return evil for evil, that we should not laugh along with the world. The fact is, Ken is not on their team, and this site is like Rush Limbaugh without a democrat in office. If Ken never came back (oh he will) this site would not even have a reason to exist.

14   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 8:10 am

Rick,

With all due respect, Chris L did say:

So, in regards to both parties and their actions in the current matter, it’s pretty safe to declare both to be losers.

But, and here is where I take issue with your comments, if a place of unhappiness, hatred, and downright anger is taken down, well we do not rejoice at their downfall (although the Psalmist might have!) but certainly we are not quick to question the Lord’s will in this matter. I think Chris would say the say thing about crn.info.

Pastor Silva has perhaps at times in his life had a valuable ministry and perhaps, as Iggy suggests, he can again in the future–one filled with grace and mercy and compassion. But perhaps he became a bit too happy about his own progress–his own popularity in the ODM world. (Thankfully, Ingrid is in Chicago so we will be spared for a day or two from her laments.) He could have taken the post down this is not a matter of principle but of pride and it’s not like leaving it up proved anything to anyone except what we already knew. He wanted, as Chris said, to be portrayed as the martyr. That’s all.

I’m not saying RA is right (I happen to disagree profoundly with RA about a number of things not the least of which is his criticism of Harry Potter and his defense of Rick Warren.) Considering the stuff said on the web about people–and I do it at my blog concerning presidential candidates, Darwinists, and others–I think RA should have not even bothered to trouble himself. He should have considered the source. Personally, I think this is an embarassing situation for everyone.

A paraphrase of a quote I heard once goes something like this: “I don’t have to like what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

As it is: Score: RA: -2; KS: -3; Body of Jesus Christ: -5

jerry

15   Chris P.    
July 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am

You would contract with satan if it meant bringing Ken down.( maybe you have)
Ken did nothing wrong in this matter.
I would not have taken down the post either. The ISP has no clue as to what is really going on here; they are just covering their rearends.
When a post goes up stand by it or recant.
Tell Aaron that no one is “freaking out” or grumbling. The real battle is just beginning.

16   Scotty    http://scottysplace-scotty.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Lane Chaplin wrote this over on Ingrid’s site.

Reportedly, a press release is about to go out to national media about this incident because it provides a clear precedent that has grave and clear implications for all who value the right to express their views online, regardless of the subject matter.

And this is the real issue:

Everyone who values the right to read and publish blogs on the Internet has a vested interested in this. There will be more on all of this shortly.

I don’t think anybody has “won” anything with the taking down of Ken’s site.

I also agree Richard went too far on this……This is not in any sort of defense of Ken, I’m looking at the over all picture here. The only thing Richard did was create another martyr.

It would have better if it had all been ignored, as I do with most of what Ken has written!

17   Chris P.    
July 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am

“if a place of unhappiness, hatred, and downright anger is taken down, well we do not rejoice at their downfall (although the Psalmist might have!)”

Sounds like slander to me. Same could be said about this site.

18   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:22 am

“Body of Jesus Christ: -5″

Yes, and sad. But we can learn and do better. There are good things that come from bad experiences. As a commenter here I would not wish to see that happen to crninfo, and even Ken’s articles that I have taken issue with have provked me to prayer and a searching of my own heart and the Scriptures.

God can use even thorns (Paul). Good thoughts, Jerry.

19   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:32 am

The scripture clearly states that we should not take joy in the downfall of a brother, that we should not return evil for evil,

I take no joy in Ken suffering misfortune.

The deletion of Apprising is not “Ken’s downfall”. It was his choice. It was his pride and his refusal to suffer any broach to it that caused its deletion. Apprising is not Ken – it is (or was) a bunch of lifeless ones and zeroes, just as is any blog or website.

If you go back into the archives, you will note that both times that Slice went down due to actual misfortune, we did not take any pleasure.

What Abanes did was wrong. When Ken did (and has been doing) was wrong.

Should we mourn that Ken chose to rid the world of a pile of bile and slander rather than accept any broach to his pride by working out differences with another Christian? I think not.

Should we mourn for the youth worker who re-images his computer, losing all sorts of data important to him along with folders full of porn, rather than have someone fix his computer, possibly exposing his secret sin? No – we should rejoice for the deletion of such offensive material, while still mourning for the one caught in its grip.

We have no joy in any misfortune Ken may suffer. I fail to see, though, how the deletion of apprising is Ken’s misfortune…

20   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 8:34 am

Maybe I’m a bit confused. And I ask this generally wanting to know. And certainly don’t want be distasteful but…

Christians have, by in large, tried to squelch free speech with many of the those who don’t hold the same moral code or belief system yet depend on the freedom that allows that defend their own ideology. In my mind this is hypocrisy at worst and duplicity at best.

And on a completely different note. Grace is a tricky concept…it’s easy to demand but very difficult to give. I suspect Ken gets very little because he’s given very little. That’s not right but it is certainly understandable.

21   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am

I think the thing that most are missing is that it was a “post” that was in question and was asked to be removed… Ken turned it into his whole site (which still had its own issues)… It was Ken’s decision to take it all down. Why… that only he can answer.

I hope Ken will revamp and take another look…

I have two people who have “hate” blogs against me. One is filled with total lies and slander the other I think is a man who is mentally ill.

I asked Blogger to help take down one site and they told me that they will only do that if I sued them… The man has not posted for over a year… but it is still out there…

I see Ken made a brash decision…

For Richard Abanes’ defense, he stated he did not want it to go to lawyers… he never stated he was going to take it to lawyers, though… since Ken used worldly ways to attack others, I would not hold it against someone using the courts to set him straight since he disregarded his brothers and sisters calling to change his ways and stop the sin of slandering others.

If you judge by worldly standards, you will be judged that way… that is the warning Paul gives many times in scripture.

iggy

22   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:38 am

Just for the record, I would note that we had an article that was almost a year old when Ingrid wrote to me and threatened legal action – escalating it to the point of (supposedly) contacting her lawyer – if I did not get rid of it.

As a result, I edited it in a way so as to remove the specific offense rather than have it escalate.

Ken could have done the same and stayed in the right on this particular matter.

23   Tim Wirth    http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am

I was just online and Kens site was still up. I also emailed Lane and aske him to update his post on Slice for the sake of accuracy. The only thing I have to say at this time is what everyone else has already noticed. The article Richard took exception with was 3 years old it was written in 2005. Richard has as of yet to elaborate on where Ken slanders him on this. I dont see it anywhere in the article and Abanes refusal to point out the slander speaks words to me as Im sure it does many here. Funny that Richard also does the same things he accuses others of doing look in his treatment of Warren Smith and others in his website articles.
Like it or not this is gonna get a lot of press online and in hard copy if Ken site gets shut down. It will cast reflection on Rick Warren because Abanes speaks in his defence as well as the freedom of speech issues that are going on in many areas including Canada and here in the states.
You guys cast your opinions about other here that in Richards defintion of slander using the article he used that Silva wrote could be used against you as slander and libel.
Now Im not accusing any of you here of that but this will set a new standard if Abanes wins this one.
Look what Abanes quotes about Bud Press from Richards website
“Unfortunately, a bulldog’s tenacity suddenly becomes a horror when it’s jaws clamp down on the neck of a small baby in the family, or on the face of a neighbor’s little pet kitty. And that is exactly what Bud “Bulldog” Press has been doing—chewing to bits everything around him. Blood and flesh, figuratively speaking, are flying everywhere. But he doesn’t care. He’s a bulldog.” end of quote
Richard doesnt use one quote from any of Buds online article that show the slander he accuses Bud of but instead states this about Bud.
Wheres the Beef?
In Abanes article about me or me and Bud where is the slander and lies Richard accuses us of doing?
Where is the proof in Richards tirads.
No folks this will be much more than a little violin playing.
I never worry about Abanes because he acts like a punk, schoolyard bully.
With all the problems Richard states he is going through on Phoenix Preacher why not spend some more time where its really important instead of trying to get other’s to give his book a five star rating because the new agers are eating him up( and Richard is a award winning apoligist why are new agers giving Richard such a hard time if Richard has the Holy Spirit on his side) and why encourage others to play eve online when there are other things by Richards own admission he could be doing.
Anyway I dont agree with all of Kens articles sometimes but the real point here is why did Richard go after a 3 year old article that has no slander connected to it?
And Richard often accuses us of crying wolf.
Whatever!
The problem with Richard is he lacks the facts and uses rehtoric instead.
Peace
Sincerely in Christ
Tim Wirth
PS thanks for allowing me to vent
More to come on all this Im sure

24   emergent pillage    http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am

–The deletion of Apprising is not “Ken’s downfall”. It was his choice. It was his pride and his refusal to suffer any broach to it that caused its deletion.–

Wow, what a perfect example of ‘blame the victim’.

–Should we mourn for the youth worker who re-images his computer, losing all sorts of data important to him along with folders full of porn, rather than have someone fix his computer, possibly exposing his secret sin? No – we should rejoice for the deletion of such offensive material, while still mourning for the one caught in its grip.–

Comparing what happened to Ken to someone losing porn is tasteless and vile.

25   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am

Chris P: You would contract with satan if it meant bringing Ken down.( maybe you have)

Thank you for demonstrating your loving, Christian heart for us, Chris P. You never seem to fail at demonstrating why you were put on moderation in the first place.

CP: I would not have taken down the post either.

Then your choice of pride vs. consequences would have been just as deserved. It seems to me that when you completely ignore the possibility of your own error that you tend to increase the possibility of making rather stupid decisions, which was the case here.

JH: “if a place of unhappiness, hatred, and downright anger is taken down, well we do not rejoice at their downfall (although the Psalmist might have!)”

CP: Sounds like slander to me.

How, exactly? Seriously. You and PB seem to have little regard for the English language or (ahem) discernment when it comes to understanding what terms like ’slander’, ‘atonement’ and ’satire’ actually mean…

Tim W: I was just online and Kens site was still up.

Tim – I’m trying multiple avenues and redirects and not finding it – are you sure you’re not just looking at your cache?

As for the rest of your comment, I don’t disagree that Abanes was in the wrong in this particular matter, and I’m not sure I agree with his application of slander/libel in this instance.

That said, Ken is not standing on the First Amendment here, he’s just grandstanding on it. Though I could be wrong, I doubt this will get all that much legitimate press, as it never escalated into a legal matter.

26   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am

Jazz – You will go on moderation if you don’t stop with the alternate personalities. Iggy and others have stopped doing so – please do the same.

27   Tim Wirth    http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:01 am

Chris I deleted all my temp internet files before using another search. And still got the site. But I have saved some of Kens articles to my favorites so Im not sure if this affects that or not???
Peace
Tim

28   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:06 am
–The deletion of Apprising is not “Ken’s downfall”. It was his choice. It was his pride and his refusal to suffer any broach to it that caused its deletion.–

Wow, what a perfect example of ‘blame the victim’.

There is no victim to blame. Ken had multiple avenues of redress and he chose the most dramatic one. He could have simply temporarily removed it and a) worked out any issues with RA; b) continued grandstanding while decrying the martyrdom of his single lost article; and/or c) shopped for an ISP that supports free speech.

While we may weep for the martyrs of the faith, as recorded in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, I’m not sure I’ve read the companion Foxe’s Book of Self-Immolators.

29   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 9:07 am

Chris L

Why do you have to always take shots at me when addressing others?

I find that slanderous. I think I am going to get me a lawyer. ******

*****satire

30   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am

PB,

Better question…

Why do you take shots at other when you address them?

iggy

31   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:10 am

Here’s a simple redirect:

Go to Babelfish and see if you can get it to translate apprising.org from English to any other language.

Also, if you’ve not closed down your browser since clearing your cache, it may still show you the version cached in RAM.

32   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am

This should not be another platform for wild and predictable accusations and divisions. We should ALL realize Richard made a msitake thatcould have implications for all of us, and our interaction between ourselves should be centered around that fact and tempered by a common interest and a common Lord.

I suggest we all give substantive and thoughtful comments that can help us all, not the same old, tired “you vs. us” diatribes. Everyone here has made mistakes so none of us can stand in perfection, but since the internet is new we need to approach these issues Biblically and with brotherhood. If we disagree with someone do not visit their site and moderate their comments, breaking fellowship in a matter of speaking.

We must view this issue without attaching Ken and his views to it. Perhaps there are Christian servers?

33   Chris P.    
July 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am

Well actually you are the ones who fail to “discern” satitre.
Since this site was created mainly as the anti-thesis against Ken and Ingrid, I make all my comments based on that.
Your goal is to either refute or bring down their blogs, and the blogs of others who agree with them.
Criticizing a site as unhappy, hateful etc, is opinion and slanderous in intent.
Not to mention that they are subjective value judgments.
As for pride vs consequence;
read Acts 4. The apostles refused to obey the council, however they submitted to whatever “consequence” might ensue from their disobedience.
Of course you, and those who agree with you, are the only ones comparable to Christ and the apostles.

34   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am

“Ken could have done the same and stayed in the right on this particular matter.”

That is correct, Chris. But that is not the issue. We as Christian bloggers need to stand shoulder to shoulder against manipulating secular companies to remove another blog because of threatened legal action.

And even though Mrs. Schlueter never followed through because you and the other blogger removed the article, she is just as guilty as Richard in this and she should show some courage and leadership and admit it. Please tell me why I would ever restrict someone from posting what I have written? I do not get it.

The body of Christ is very good at receiving forgiveness, but still very poor at asking for it. We are still navigating uncharted internet waters, let us admit our mistakes and fix them.

35   RayJr    
July 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am

All those self referential circular links to one’s own blog to generate Google juice… for naught.

36   Nathan    
July 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am

OK, is everybody ready for the tidal wave of anti-Abanes writing on the the ODM network of blogs? I mean, seriously, I would bet about 80% of the stories from the ODM network in the next 2 weeks are going to have his name in them.

Any takers? Over/Under?

37   Bo Diaz    
July 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comparing what happened to Ken to someone losing porn is tasteless and vile.

It seems rather apt, both types of sin are distributed via the internet, produced for the titillation of its consumers, and are detrimental to all who come into contact with it.

38   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am

.INFO dudes,

Okay.

First, FYI, an updated article on the part that Lighthouse trials is now playing has been posted as Lighthouse Trails: More Ken Silva Propaganda. Very enlightening, I think, and also expands on my viewpoint/perspective.

Second, it was NEVER my intention for Silva’s website to be removed. I cannot even begin to understand why did chose this course of action, rather than just removing the article.

Third, what was so offensive about the article. This is expressed a bit more clearly in the above linked new blog post.

Fourth, if you are at all interested, I would ask that you please read the responses I have given to the many comments that have appeared at my blog. My responses very much express how I am looking at this issue, and further develops why I did what I did. This move — contrary to what is now being alleged in sensational, overblown, tabloid-like fashion — threatens no one.

Now, on to your comments.
___________
IGGY: I do feel bad for Ken that he has to close up shop, yet I hope that when he does come back he will revamp his ministry to be a ministry and not an assassin blog. I also hope that when he comes back he can be an edifier of the Body.

ABANES: That’s the strangest thing to me. He DIDN’T have to close up shop. I never asked for that. I never wanted that. Even his ISP didn’t want that. They only requested ONE isolated article to be removed. I confess, I really have NO IDEA why he chose to let his website be kicked. It makes no sense at all to me.
_________________
RICK: Mr. Abanes was and is completely wrong and refuses to accept responsibility.

ABANES: I have many, many reponses now to this very charge. I discuss it in my blog responses from both a biblical and rational perspective — including this whole issue of fear about how this might affect other bloggers. I see it affecting bloggers, especially Christian bloggers, in a very positive way. The only people who have anything to fear, in my opinion, are those who want a free pass to say whatever they want to say with no regard for how inaccurate or hurtful it might be to someone. This has no bearing whatsoever — contrary to Lighthouse Trails — on free speech or teh freedom to critique false teachings and/or sinful behavior.
___________________
RICK: Will a message about the exclusivity of Christ, or the sinfulness of homosexuality, or the wrongness of Islam, or the sin of divorce, and a thousand other things be considered offensive enough to some so that the server demands their removal?

ABANES: No, no, no, no. One hundred times no. Such critiques are totally protected. I have my own website and blog, so I fail to see the logic behind them thinking I would do something that could endanger my own work, ministry, and career. That makes no sense. These TOS agreements have been around for years, and always will be around. Nothing has changed. No “precedent” has been set by me or IPOWER.
___________________
RICK: the action By Richard was unbiblical and despicable.

ABANES: Hardly. Despicable? How about saving that for some of the guys on MSNBC “To Catch A Predator.” I’m really shocked and disappointed that you’re reacting like this.
__________________
RICK: To any “objective simpleton” Mr. Abanes is obsessed with defending Rick Warren from even the slightest criticism, and his comments sometimes seem to reflect that obsession.

ABANES: Really? Add up how many words/projects I’ve done on Rick Warren and put that against how many words I’ve written on other issues over the years, and get back to me. And while you’re at it, add up how much ink and bandwidth has been used up by the ODMs on Rick Warren, then you tell me who is obsessed with who.
___________________
RICK: ……..[snip].

ABANES: R, I don’t think you’re thinking clearly, IMHO. So, I see no reason to continue with you.
___________________
SCOTTY: I don’t think anybody has “won” anything with the taking down of Ken’s site.

ABANES: I agree 100%. The end-result was NEVER my intention. Thank Mr. ken Silva for that.
___________________
CHRIS L: The deletion of Apprising is not “Ken’s downfall”. It was his choice.

ABANES: I agree. He’s not suffering, IMHO. All he had to do was take down and/or make that article about my doctrine (rather than my personal/professional integrity, character, and Christian walk). But he didn’t. He DELIBERATELY took a course, much to my shock, that has turned him into a martyr. To me, that’s the sickest thing here.
___________________
CHRIS L: As a result, I edited it in a way so as to remove the specific offense rather than have it escalate. Ken could have done the same and stayed in the right on this particular matter.

ABANES: THANK YOU, Chris. That is exactly what should have happened. You did the mature, intelligent, rational thing.

RA

39   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am

RICK: And even though Mrs. Schlueter never followed through because you and the other blogger removed the article, she is just as guilty as Richard in this and she should show some courage and leadership and admit it.

ABANES: Why are the ODMs not going after Ingrid the way they are now going after me? I think that’s an EXCELLENT question. And she actually contacted an attorney — AND had him ago so far as to take threatening action!

RA

40   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

“This entire thing is wrong and I predict Mr. Abanes will continue to use eloquence and his elongated literary style of question and answer to provide a well crafted defense of his actions.”

Voilà.

41   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

RICK: Voilà.

ABANES: Truth is truth. Sorry. Sometimes the truth hurts, Rick.

RA

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

After reading part of your communication with the server, how can you legitimately claim you did not insinuate that you were contemplating legal action?

Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I respectfully request that IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM remove this particular article from it’s servers, and notify Ken Silva to cease and desist the posting similar articles. I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit, and hope to resolve this issue as quickly and easily as possible.”

Come on, Richard. You are a writer and words mean something. You overreacted and made a mistake, but your threat was obvious.

43   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

BTW Chris – how did the score go from RA-3KS-2 to

RA-2KS-3 ?

Talk about your manipulative bias! :)

44   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

RICK: After reading part of your communication with the server, how can you legitimately claim you did not insinuate that you were contemplating legal action?

ABANES: Okay, since you asked.

First, you certainly MUST be aware of the fact that insinuating a lawsuit to a SECULAR organization is hardly the same thing as literally bringing a CHRISTIAN brother into court? Right? I mean, you DO see the difference, right? I hope you do. So, let’s not force that email into 1 Corinthians 6.

Second, that email I sent is a template — a basic, standard, legal-speak, all-purpose TOS notification form — that I found on the Internet somewhere I don’t know how many years ago. It was recommended as the basic form to send to an ISP with a complaint, adjusted accordingly to whatever that complaint might be (porno infraction, copyright violation, whatever). I’ve used it several times in years gone by to notify ISPs about photograph infringement, copyright infringement (e.g., whole chapters from my books reproduced online), music infringement (my music illegally uploaded to various websites). And guess what. No big deal. No lawsuits. No hassles. (And I’ve received them, too).

Suddenly, thanks to Ken Silva, martyr extraordinaire — who decided to kill off his own website and go out with a cry of persecution — this thing has turned into a circus. And yet, somehow, everywhere else on the Internet these things happen daily with no explosive ramifications. Leave it to Christians, however, to make everything crazy.

Third, as for the phrase “Before turning this situation over to my attorneys,” here’s a thought: How about me calling an attorney and saying, “Good morning, Charlie. Listen, what do you think i should do about this?” No lawsuit there, is there? And again, this is the template’s language that I haevbarely read through in ages. Blame whoever thought this template up. I’m sure they never dreamed of someone like Ken Silva.

Fourth, as for the phrase “I have no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in a legal suit,” here’s another thought: That was the template again, and it pretty much says, very correctly, “I have no wish” at all to name the ISP in any kind of lawsuit. TBH, I haevn’t thought about it much more than that since the first or second time I read it so long ago.

Fifth, as for your remark, “You are a writer and words mean something. You overreacted and made a mistake, but your threat was obvious,” uhm, no, I don’t think so. Point the over-react finger at Silva and his devotees who are acting like I have had Pastor Ken — the great apologist who was mentored by Walter Martin — thrown into some Gulag somewhere. Give me a break.

RA

45   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Richard – I have written Ken about concentrating on the core of the issue not becoming him but addressing a way to confront issues on the internet in the context of the church universal. God is both calling us to speak with grace and hear ungracious things with forbearance and painful forgiveness. What men may say about me is inconsequential compared to what God thinks about me.

As to the entire incident, I remain unconvinced concerning your perspective. Sorry.

46   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

RICK: As to the entire incident, I remain unconvinced concerning your perspective. Sorry.

RA: Fine with me. I understand. I still love ya, you crazy goose.

If you talk to Ken, tell him that the next time he writes about me, feel free to concentrate on my doctrine/theology. He has a plethora of material from which to pull quotes.

And for the life of me, I cannot see why he allowed his whole website to get dumped over this — that certainly was not what I wanted. But maybe it was, in fact, exactly what he wanted. Hmmm? It certainly will make for a juicy story and fodder for the ODMs. How exciting.

Also tell him that I am continuing to enjoy the horrifically nasty emails from all of those whom he has trained. I am especially liking the obscene names, swearing, gloats over how someday I will burn in hell, and additional false accusations about me.

I expect very soon for someone to say something about my wife, or mother, or at the very least, my own sexual preference (pastorboy on my blog has already commented: “This is not beneficial. It is counterproductive. Frankly, it is gay”).

RAbanes

47   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

“Also tell him that I am continuing to enjoy the horrifically nasty emails from all of those whom he has trained. I am especially liking the obscene names, swearing, gloats over how someday I will burn in hell, and additional false accusations about me. “

And those are just the ones I’ve sent! :lol:

48   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

RICK: And those are just the ones I’ve sent!

RA: See, how can I not love you!!??

RA

49   Sandman    
July 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Now to introduce a more cynical view:

Money to support AM and his other site was down to the point of making an online appeal, and one site had content that Richard took issue with and made a ToS gambit.

What convenient timing! Why not let the site be taken down, which would no longer have to be supported with scarce resources, claim the political high ground as victim/martyr, and point the finger of blame at Richard?

An inspired strategm. Who could come up with such a course of action such that while all these Christians are so preoccupied stridently protecting their rights, virtue, reputation, property etc., that when it hits the fan, no one comes out smelling that rosy?

50   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
July 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

I have never sent a form like RA did, but I have seen and used other standardized forms for conducting business. I do not personally know if RA’s form is standard practice, but if it is, then I have to agree with him that these sorts of things get sent all the time without issue, and that the Christians involved have really made a mess of it.

Let me try to put this in perspective for everybody. We all say hurtful things, and we all do damaging things. Sometimes we make decisions that aren’t the wisest considering the situation, but may not be wrong in and of themselves (or of course, they could be). What we have is Ken saying something hurtful (even damaging in the view of the person it was said about). Then RA does something that may not have been the wisest choice, but it was hardly done with ill will (according to RA). From there on out, it’s just one big pile up of unwise or hurtful choices from every side.

Who is in the wrong? We all are. For situations like these, I see nowhere in scripture that advises us to ferret out every wrong in order to appropriately apply blame to the responsible parties. (Chris L, that may be my one disagreement with your approach in this articel, although I do understand your point and that your intent does not fall under this.)

We are called to make things right, to forgive (even if forgiveness is not asked for), and to love eachother as Christ has loved us.

So to that end:

Ken, you have the responsibility in Christ to make things right with RA if you choose to bring back your site.

RA, I would leave well enough alone. You don’t have to defend yourself against everything. Focus your blog writing on something other than the war within the body of Christ.

Everybody else, Ken doesn’t need protecting from anything. When he does, I volunteer to step up and be a part of that protection. However, we are called to be holy as God is holy. Let us therefore leave this issue to be dealt with among the parties involved (i.e., none of the rest of us) unless there are unChristian attacks being made by Christians against others (Christians and non-Christians).

51   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Christian: RA, I would leave well enough alone. You don’t have to defend yourself against everything. Focus your blog writing on something other than the war within the body of Christ.

RABANES: Yup. Gonna do that. Comments will be shut down. And I am beginning a multi-part series on Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfey. W00t!

RAbanes

52   Sandman    
July 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Richard,

Ken’s article about you had been up since 2005. A three-year marinade is a bit extreme in anybody’s kitchen. If what he had written was damaging so why take action now as opposed to some time sooner?

53   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Who is in the wrong? We all are. For situations like these, I see nowhere in scripture that advises us to ferret out every wrong in order to appropriately apply blame to the responsible parties.

Amen! This is what I have been thinking the last hour reading this thread.

We can continue debating who was more wrong, who should do what and who should forgive who. All I can do is change how I comment and write. Add more grace to my words. Let us each look at ourselves and leave Ken and Richard to do what they must do now. Oh yes, we can do one more important thing – pray.

I want to echo what merry said:

I personally would vote for a complete shift in focus of today’s splintered Christianity . . . a shift towards unity, unconditional love and unheard of forgiveness, settling matters outside of court, and always putting ourselves in others points of view.

Make us one Lord Jesus as You and the Father are one.

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

My question as well. You were searching his archives to find stuff about you or Rick? I have seen much worse verbiage from Ken than was in that post and I told him so. It appears as if you were looking for something about which you could be sufficiently offended?

The ineternet is a vehicle for extreme inflation of our importance and our readership. Go to 1st Baptist Church of anywhere and ask how many members have heard of Ken Silva and most will have none. Of course the majority will know and love me and my work, and I say that with utter humility. :cool:

55   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Running the risk of being the apologist for the Rick Warren apologist but so be it.

If what he had written was damaging so why take action now as opposed to some time sooner?

Ken had been asked many times on this forum alone to remove slanderous material. Which he refused to acknowledge as slanderous. Much of the dialogue between Ken and Richard can be found here. It is my belief that Richard tried privately and publicly to address the issues that Ken had with him. Ken refused.

Richard, as the person who was written about by Ken is the only one who can claim what is slander against him and what is not. The burden of proof is not on Richard to prove he was slandered the burden of proof is on Ken to prove what was written wasn’t slanderous. Ken would only need to support his claims as truthful and accurate nothing more. Which many of us who comment here know that Ken would be unable to do that. Again in referencing the many conversations on this blog alone it is plain to see that Richard tried repeatedly to have dialogue about the issues with Ken.

Noting Richards point that he IS a professional writer who makes a living by his ability to accurately research and write about the Occult he could very easily be undermined by the rogue ramblings of anybody with an internet connection. Cedarville and Shane Claiborne ring a bell for anyone.

Personally I see no foul with what Richard has done. Having dialogued with him here and elsewhere I believe that he has tried to get Ken, as many of us have, to see the error in much of what he writes. To no avail. Well until now.

56   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Is it somehow possible for us to be reconciliatory rather than accusing who is the culprit? Pointing out who is wrong in this situation only adds fuel to this already run away fire.

57   Bo Diaz    
July 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

This entire brouhaha puts on display that the discerners have a very law-based system of Christianity. Every scripture is parsed into a “thou shalt not” and anything that can’t be easily turned into such a simplistic formula is thrown out. Here we see 1 Corinthians 6 has been turned into “thou shalt not contact an attorney”, and the rest is tossed out. So we see the vociferous condemnation of Mr Abanes, but not the tiniest clause written about Mr Silva’s refusal to submit to intrachurch mediation.

Now, how they justify letting Ms. Schlueter off the hook for actually getting attorneys to pull something down that she doesn’t like I don’t know.

58   merry    
July 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

“Is it somehow possible for us to be reconciliatory rather than accusing who is the culprit? Pointing out who is wrong in this situation only adds fuel to this already run away fire.”

Eugene,

That’s exactly what I was trying to get across 6 comments in before this conversation even started. :)

Again, I say to everyone, “Love keeps no records of wrongs”.

That’s my new motto. A much needed one, too.

59   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Pointing out who is wrong in this situation only adds fuel to this already run away fire.

Do you know how this fire would have never become a run away fire? If Ken would have merely taken down the article with nary a word. But no Ken posted about at it Apprising. And currently there are a dozen or so articles on the main page at C?N.com about Richard. So I don’t know, maybe the “victim” (nice one Jazz) is the one doing the stoking of this particular fire.

As I said earlier Grace is a tough concept to grasp. Ken would probably have gotten more if he would have given more. It’s not right but it is understandable.

60   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Again, I say to everyone, “Love keeps no records of wrongs”.

Agreed and this may be trite but:

While “Love keeps no record of wrongs” Google cache keeps every record.

61   merry    
July 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Christianity has been around a lot longer than Google! :)

62   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

“If Ken would have merely taken down the article with nary a word. ”

Or if Richard had just let it go as well.

63   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”–Jesus of Nazareth

64   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets. “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”–Jesus of Nazareth

65   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Or if Richard had just let it go as well.

Come on Rick…really? Do you really wanna make Richard the one who was being unbiblical in this matter. Sure I understand that this whole thing was escalated way beyond what it should be but let’s be honest. Ken was way overboard in his verbiage against many, many, many, people. And much which was outright lies.

This idea that Richard was out of bounds by asking that an article, that slandered him, be removed is ludicrous. Quite frankly I don’t get that.

As I’ve perused the internet today I’ve seen everything from “Ken’s first amendment rights were violated” to “The persecution of the church is intensifying” to which I respond…Puhleeze!
You can not cry foul when the standard in which you used has/is being used against you.

66   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

What we can learn from this fiasco (including words and actions expressed here and at other blogs):

1. Ignorance can be bliss. (This is for the rest of us without a vested interest.)

2. Read every contract you sign/agree to. I know, nobody likes to do this, and most of the time, we don’t even give it a second glance, but it is there for a reason.

3. Patience is a virtue. Take a step back, a deep breath, and then go outside and visit with your neighbor.

4. Whining is not a virtue.

5. It can be hard to tell when we are whining or when we have a bad attitude, especially when in the midst of a conflict. Seek the objective wisdom of people that have no vested interest (i.e. – they don’t care). And by “seek the ojective wisdom” I don’t mean go complain telling only your side of the story.

6. Some things in life aren’t nearly as big a deal as we make them out to be. I’m pretty sure this is one of them.

7. Speculation leads nowhere beneficial. We end up being wrong (things don’t turn out the way we speculate) or being wrong (they turn out just like we speculate and we have a bad attitude about it). Sometimes I hate being right.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s a lot to learn in one comment.

67   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

While “Love keeps no record of wrongs” Google cache keeps every record.” Apparently RA does as well. I knew he couldn’t resist further publicity and not comment here. What a publicity hound…oops, is that sladerous?!

68   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

If I am Todd Bentley I can bring legal action against this site for slander.

Chris, we should act as Christians – different. And if someone doesn’t act like that – we still should. Let it go. Ken has said stuff about me but forgiveness should be projected into the coming future.

I forgive ahead of time anyone who says anything about me, even the good stuff that isn’t quite accurate!

69   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

You know, with all the hubub over the demise of apprising ministries (which is certainly NOT the demise of an individual named Pastor Silva), perhaps we have forgotten that he still has his other mouthpiece CRN of which he is the general editor (and at which there are already several (I counted 6) posts dated July 27, 2008 that are against RA.

It’s like I said in my original reply, #14, this is embarassing for everyone. I would think that one of the two main parties involved here would wish, at some point, to take the high road and drop it.

jerry

70   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Apparently RA does as well. I knew he couldn’t resist further publicity and not comment here. What a publicity hound…oops, is that sladerous?!

Yeah because our little circle of theology hacks could give Richard so much traction in his career. LOL

71   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Jerry – Can you provide directions to the High Road. I believe they’ve moved it! :roll:

72   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Chris, we should act as Christians – different. And if someone doesn’t act like that – we still should. Let it go. Ken has said stuff about me but forgiveness should be projected into the coming future.

Not arguing this point. Yes forgiveness. The cornerstone of our faith should always be the high road.

However that does not mean that we allow other Christians to make false claims about us without a response.

I personally had people in my local community call me a heretic for taking my students to a Shane Claiborne conference. Why because they read about the Cedarville brush up on AM and LHT. Should I have just said “I forgive you” and not defend my decision or the validity of those claims?

73   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm

You should have defended in grace without denying them their freedom to say what they want. Richard should have posted about the article, he is well capable of that. But to go to the unjust for justice is wrong.

74   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

I have responded to Richard Abanes asking the question why he didn’t approach Ken First here And I pose this question to you all who defend him~ Why didn’t he go to Ken first?because he is unreasonable? Give me a break.

75   amy    
July 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

The deletion of Apprising is not “Ken’s downfall”. It was his choice.

(Chris L)

Sounds like you are quoting Abanes, who repeatedly emphasizes that this is Ken’s choice:

From a comment on his blog: “I also, BTW, did NOT want Ken’s website to be kicked. I am actually shocked that he chose to play martyr and kill his own website? That was HIS choice. Not mine. I wish people would acknowledge that. But that little factoid keeps being ignored. They keep blaming ME for having his website deleted, when in reality, HE was the one who chose to let that happen — and he chose to do it over one article out of hundreds, included other articles in which he critiqued me. That’s very, very odd to me.” Richard Abanes

Sounds an awful lot like this: “I also, by the way, did not want the whole country of ______ to come under my rule. I only requested that People Group A give up one of their tiny territories where I was not held in high regard. I am actually shocked that they chose to play martyr and let their whole country be swept into the sea. That was THEIR choice. Not mine. I wish people would acknowledge that. But that little factoid keeps being ignored. They keep blaming ME for having the whole country swept into the sea, when in reality, THEY were the one who chose to let that happen — and they chose to do it over one territory out of hundreds, included other territories in which they speak against me. That’s very, very odd to me.” – unidentified political tyrant, a type seen oft throughout history

76   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

PB–

You seem to know Ken well. Let me pose a question: Do you really think Ken would give RA any sort of audience in this matter? Seriously. Do you honestly believe that Pastor Silva would have acted honorably in private? I’m being serious here.

jerry

77   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Jerry,

Good question, I believe he would as he has given such an audience to Tony Jones and others with whom he vehemetly disagrees.

It does not matter; Jesus did not put a caveat on the command to go to our brother privately. We must go first, and if the brother does not respond, then we go to the church. We do not get to assume that he will not respond.

78   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 27th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Those who are all upset that RA threatened to sue KS crack me up. No, he didn’t. He wanted IPower to bring a blog that was not meeting the TOS its owner agreed to abide by when he set up his **ahem** ministry in line with said TOS.
Where’s the outrage over Ingrid doing this very same thing? As for litigation against a brother, what evidence is there that Ken is a brother? Ken has built his entire ministry on saying that other people who claim to be Christians are not Christians, slander, and lies. What fruit is there beyond his claims that he is actually a Christian?

79   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I have seen someone on Mike Ratliff’s site claim Abanes is not saved, and now we have a claim Ken doesn’t show any evidence of salvation.

The high road is under construction.

80   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Well, Someday I hope to get there so I can see what you’re walking on Rick, but until then I’d like an answer. What evidence besides his claims is there? “Many will say to me in that day..”
And Rick, don’t forget that RA didn’t threaten to sue KS.

81   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Joe – you have a surly spirit and bitternes toward Ken. I walk on feet of clay.

82   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Joe – My working assumption would be that, since Ken claims to be a Christian (despite the evidence of a significant pile of fruit that would dispute it) to treat him as one, since the principal regarding litigation between brothers is one grounded in reputation of the church beyond the individual. I agree with PB that RA should have gone to KS first, though I think it would have been about as successful as a sternly-worded letter from the UN.

Amy – I don’t know what article you’re referring to (I skimmed a couple of RA’s posts and ODM responses, but no comments). Whether or not RA agreed with my assessment (that the deletion of Ken’s website beyond the article in question was his own fault and nobody else’s), which he did above (after my post) is pretty much immaterial, your irrelevant hypothetical notwithstanding.

83   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 27th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Well, Thank You Rick. That still doesn’t answer my question. You can claim that others are wrong but when I ask a question, I have a surly spirit. Do you have any evidence that Ken is a Christian beyond his claim to be or are you just here to call me names?

84   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

PB–

But I have read the way Pastor Silva responds to people in public–when others are watching. What should convince me that he would treat others rightly privately? It’s unfair for me to ask you to speak for him–so please forgive my questions. But if out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks and we have seen what we have seen in public forums…well…public or private there might be issues.

jerry

85   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 27th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Joe – My working assumption would be that, since Ken claims to be a Christian (despite the evidence of a significant pile of fruit that would dispute it) to treat him as one, since the principal regarding litigation between brothers is one grounded in reputation of the church beyond the individual.

Two separate things to me. Ken wasn’t threatened with litigation. The IPS was. Ken’s already claiming persecution “by the religious elite.” I just want someone who is a KS defender to tell me they have seen fruit that looks like Jesus with Ken.
BTW, the above quote proves that despite your boiler maker disadvantage you are a better person than I.

86   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Purdue is the land of milk and honey Joe! Didn’t you get the memo?

87   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

I didn’t call you any name. I do not know Ken personally so I am in no position to judge, Christ commanded us not to pull up tares because we cannot know who is saved.

The “you’re not saved” match is unproductive and actually derails the conversation. When frustration reaches its zenith then we can always claim a person isn’t saved. Some are now claiming Richard isn’t saved.

That in and of itself sets us all up as the final judge because it isn’t meant as a concern we would have for a friend, its meant as maliciousness.

88   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Purdue is the land of milk and honey Joe! Didn’t you get the memo?

Bless you, Chris :)

89   amy    
July 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

His comments blaming the whole thing on Ken are throughout his blog responses – the one I’m looking at is the new one I clicked on from Slice.

your irrelevant hypothetical notwithstanding.

Really? I see it as an almost exact parallel. And I believe you would too, if Richard or someone else tried to take one of your articles down in like manner.

90   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

I see it as an almost exact parallel.

Which says more about you than anything else…

Whatever, amy – your hypotheticals are always games of “gotcha” based on wigged-out, stupid assumptions which gloss over the basic facts in most every matter.

In this particular case, Ken had a choice to have ONE article deleted or to have his entire website deleted. He chose to play the part of a faux-martyr, drama queen and has reaped his own consequences. I think iPower overreacted, but it is their business to run as they see fit.

And I believe you would too, if Richard or someone else tried to take one of your articles down in like manner.

Your belief is dead wrong, then. Perhaps you missed the earlier comment about a similar threat to me via threatened litigation from Ingrid. Instead of being a whiny pseudo-martyr, I worked with her to meet her concerns without sacrificing the integrity of this site. While I suppose I could have gone the “go ahead, sue me” route and posted page after page of articles crying about the unfairness of it all and self-immolated, it didn’t seem the most prudent course. Ken apparently thought differently (I suspect along the lines of Sandman’s earlier cynicism)…

91   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Amy,

The difference here is that Chris L would do the right thing and Chris L believes more in the work being done here than in his own pride or rightness.

What you seem to miss is that Pastor Silva had that opportunity to do just that. He could have even edited the post. Whether RA is right or wrong is nearly beside the point when it comes to Pastor Silva’s response–and the making public of the emails, etc.–and his stubborn refusal to remove the post. It was no martyrdom, it was pride.

Besides, there are a lot of free blogs available all over the internet. Maybe someone help Pastor Silva set up a free blog! :)

jerry

92   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Jerry – free blogs don’t require pleas for donations to run them – a “martyr’d” blog, though, might tug on the heartstrings hard enough to loosen some purse strings…

93   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

The threshold question is still was Richard correct for legally leveraging the ISP and is he correct in saying he never insinuated legal action in contrast to his own words?

94   Sandman    
July 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

When you have a gathering of two or more, there conflict will be also. We’re supposed to settle those conflicts quickly.

I’m sure many people have tried to reach Ken, but that’s not really the point. You know everything you need to know about Ken by his behavior here and elsewhere, including his own sites. I don’t even have a problem with Richard contacting Ken’s ISP. However, the denial of even an implied threat of legal action, and the timing (approx. three years after the event and right on the heels of Ingrid’s action) is suspect, and is going to be subject to criticism.

I remember when Ingrid’s earlier version of SoL … (sorry, I just remembered the other thing that stands for) allowed comments, Richard was Johnny-on-the-spot when someone talked bad about him or RW, and even created a parody site that looked just like Ingrid’s at that time.

My thinking on this is both gentlemen should take some time to examine their motives behind some of their actions. From whatever angle you look at it, where one is instigating, the other is agitating. Where one is agitating, the other escalating. (I could continue with litigating and anihilating, but I think the point is made.) Is this how Jesus acted when people cast aspersions on Him? Is this how the Apostles behaved or proscribed as the appropriate course of action when there were conflicts?

Adding to Christian P, a couple of other things can be learned from this:

Not everything negative said or written about you requires a response. In many instances, you’re swatting at gnats, or possibly lending credibility to your detractor’s accusations, drawing attention to the situation and feeding the fire.

Not everything negative said or written about you is going to make your stock plummet. It could be that someone is out to use your position to make a name for themselves. Sometimes you just have to say “Consider the source.” And even that is saying too much sometimes.

Don’t play their game, play your own.

95   Sandman    
July 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I just came across this piece that talks about lawsuits between Christians from a legal and Judeo-Christian perspective.

96   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Most of us need a good stock plummet once in a while.

97   Sandman    
July 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

True, a nice trip and a great fall can keep a person humble. But it’s not necessarily up to us to cause it to happen.

98   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

This discussion about who is guilty of what is not helpful. I want to suggest that we take this conversation to the “how can we help these two brothers reconcile” level. I might be naive here, but with God nothing is impossible.

I have sent both messages that I am praying for them for wisdom and the capacity to forgive. Perhaps praying that this thing will be contained is also appropriate.

99   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
July 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Ok, In order I think.
1. No, I didn’t know that about Purdue. Every Purdue girl I ever met made me want to sleep with one eye open…
2. Normally, I would agree with you that the “you’re not saved match” is unproductive but in this case it is very Germaine because it goes to one of the issues brought up. I’ve not just started saying it here, I’ve been openly questioning it for a long time.
3. Lastly, I am not an RA fan but I think he was 100% correct in this. Although his timing is suspect. Why is KS above the very TOS he agreed to abide by? RA didn’t sue him, he leveraged the law and accomplished something good for a little for while. Ken’s not being persecuted, he’s getting the fruit of what he has sown. In short I disagree with the idea that all litigation is bad. I realize that you probably disagree with me.

100   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
July 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Rick,

The threshold answer is: There is nothing to suggest that people blogging on the internet for fun and/or profit are bound by the ‘constitutional’ functions of Scripture. After all, I recall one famous theologian doing something very similar when he shouted, “I appeal to Caesar.”

People blogging on the internet, in public, are bound by the TOS of the ISP they contract with. Period. It is the internet. It’s blogging. But that does not mean there are no rules.

Again, Pastor Silva had his opportunity and RA’s rightness or wrongness is beside the point legally speaking. It may be childish, and many here seem to think it is, but I would have more respect for Pastor Silva had he done the right thing and turned the other cheek or gone the second mile. It seems to me that is what we are commanded to do. But I am willing to concede that I may be reading that section incorrectly.

Does that make sense?
jerry

101   KyleAndrews    http://No
July 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Been reading you guys all day. Looks like Ingrid S. is going to be on a talk show tonight in Texas. Maybe a good chance to ask her some questions.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=1276

102   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Chris L. posted an article where he did not address Todd Bentley’s theology but called his ministry a “circus” and the man a “huckster”. Does that cross the same line?

When do we just suffer ourselves to be defrauded? What does that mean? If it doesn’t mean we are supposed to forgive and not avenge than what in the world is the Sermon on the Mount for? Let us just all admit we do not believe the Bible, we only SAY we believe it.

Ken is wrong for personal invectives, Mrs’ Schlueter was wrong to involve attorheys, and Abanes was wrong for threatening a secular server. There must be some little minor, teeny, shred of Christianity somewhere when we are tested.

What would Jesus do is the biggest joke in Christianity because we aren’t even willing to admit WE DON’T DO OR CARE WHAT HE WOULD DO. They called him Beelzebub and he LET THEM. He could have shut their mouths but he did not.

But of course all that “Father forgive them” stuff is just ink on paper. When it comes to our reputation or future earning power or lies said about us we turn to “practical Christianity” which isn’t Christianity at all. Jesus told us that when men say evil against us falsely we are BLESSED.

Of course all that is predicated upon the assumption that these things are not just Christian doctrine, they are things we SHOULD DO.

I’m just sayin…

103   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

And as far as I know Rob Bell and Rick Warren and even Brian MacLaren do very little defending of themselves publicly against a snowstorm of cricism, some of which is extremely hateful.

I continue to admire them for that great example. And Rick Warren’s gesture to meet with and pay for accommodations for some of his critics was Christianity in action even if we still disagree with him on issues.

104   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Rick,

The threshold question is still was Richard correct for legally leveraging the ISP and is he correct in saying he never insinuated legal action in contrast to his own words?

Why is this the “threshold” question. Ken is a big boy and if his site did not slander anyone then the ISP would have looked at it and laughed at Richard.

Again, if I went to talk to a lawyer to get advise as to how I could get the guy to take down the blog against me that insinuates I am a sexual predator because I have a myspace.com site for my online Christian radio station… would I then also have sinned. Or if I did get a lawyer to write to the guy to take it down and he did not, am I still not a citizen with rights in this nation?

I see Ken made a choice. Maybe his conscience finally got to him? He could have removed the offending page, yet this “big boy” removed his whole blog and is continuing to lie that Richard is suing him… Ken is a compulsive person… he makes brash decisions and seems only to want to get attention for himself.

He could have quitely talked to Richard… hmmm that would have been biblical… he could have revised his post… remember this was over ONE POST! It was not about his whole blog.

The ISP must have seen something there that was wrong and good for them!

The threshold question why would Ken do such a silly and crazy thing if he was the one “with the truth”?

iggy

105   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 7:29 pm

It all depends on what color uniform/glasses you wear.

106   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Rick,

= )

107   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Wow, this is like an earthquake in the ODM world. My first thought was to write about it but now I’m not sure what to add. I agree with Chris L that no one comes out a winner here.

I do find it really amazing that Ingrid is now going to turn the indignity up to 11 just a couple weeks after she employed a lawyer to shut down a blog that said some mean things about her. Whatever else is true in this situation, that’s just grade A hypocrisy.

I’d be interested in hearing from any of her compatriots (such as Chris P or the folks from Lighthouse) as to why it’s not a big deal when she uses lawyers to take down a site, but it is of shattering import when Arbanes does far less to Ken?

108   Tim Wirth    http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

The real question has been asked and Abanes of course has not answered.
In that 3 year old article that ken wrote where specifically was the slander and libel?
Ask Abanes to use quotes.
He cant do it because there was no slander or libel in this article.
Peace
Tim Wirth

109   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

John
The difference is that RA is complaining about material that was not even close to slanderous, while Ingrid was going after non-Christians who dug up photos of her in HS and told lies about her cooking meth in her home. HUGE difference.

Of course, since RA is on your team, you cannot see that.

110   Bo Diaz    
July 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

The difference is that RA is complaining about material that was not even close to slanderous, while Ingrid was going after non-Christians who dug up photos of her in HS and told lies about her cooking meth in her home. HUGE difference.

And so the justification for sin begins.

111   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 27th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

Bo Diaz

If you cannot see the clear difference, you need help.

What Christian would accuse another christian falsely of cooking meth in their home? I tell you- a non Christian.

The only justification for sin is those who say RA is completely right, within the bounds of Matthew 18:15 and 1 Corinthians in dealing with this not only outside the church, but without individual contact.

Look in the mirror pal~ you are doing the justifying here.

112   Bo Diaz    
July 27th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Ah the loving face of evangelicalism, you’re about one step away from screaming “up against the wall infidels”.

113   Tim Wirth    http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/
July 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

“Why is this the “threshold” question. Ken is a big boy and if his site did not slander anyone then the ISP would have looked at it and laughed at Richard.”
iggy bro where are you getting your information?
Do you know for a fact that the ISP looked at the article and determined slander or libel?
Did their legal dept look at Kens article and determine that Kens article was slander or libel?
With all respect to you do you know for a fact that the ISP just didnt cave because of Richards legal threat to them.
Where is your proof in this statement?
I think you assume a lot.
I would love to hear a statement that the ISP found Kens article slanderous.
This usually needs to be proven in a court of law.
And whats easier pushing a button which costs them little (it will cost them in the long run though I think)
Or fight it in court?
Well in my opinion Abanes was looking for press to help boost book sales and he got it.
Will it boost book sales to the 5 star rating he wants on Amazon?
Hard telling.
I think this will cave what little, small amount of credability Richard had left even with some of his friend. It really is telling how Abanes has failed to rightly divide the Word of God on this whole affair.
Again fruit from Rick Warren and Saddleback.
More to come Im sure
Peace
Tim

114   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Pastorboy,

I saw that site in its entirety before it was taken down. There was no accusation that Ingrid “cooked meth.” Someone claimed that Ingrid’s high school boyfriend (who they claimed to have a picture of as well) was into drinking and using drugs. The site’s owner then speculated about Ingrid’s own familiarity with such behavior. So, first off, you’re exaggerating.

Secondly, I came to Ingrid’s defense on my blog and agreed with her that such unfounded speculation was beyond the pale. So contrary to what you suggest this isn’t about “teams.”

The fact remains that Ingrid hired a lawyer to shut down a site that offended her, giving him a few hours to pull it or else. Now she’s suggesting that bloggers everywhere are in danger because of similar action against her pal Ken. Can you not see the hypocrisy there?

115   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 27th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Tim,

I agree with you that Arbanes seems to have some pretty thin skin for an author. I think contacting the ISP with a legal threat was a bit much. Ken should have been given an opportunity to take the offending post down (not that I think he’d have done it). But trying to connect this all to Rick Warren is more than a bit desperate on your part. What does Warren have to do with all this exactly?

116   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
July 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

His name is Abanes; not Arbanes. :-)

117   Nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
July 27th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

wow… have you seen CRN lately? Looks like someone knocked down the hornets nest. :)

118   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am

Ken,

I support your right to free speech. Frankly, I’m not sure I would have taken a post down under threat either.

I don’t believe Mr. Abanes (note spelling) meant for this to happen. Still, he could simply have refuted your claims on his own site if he felt the need to do so. His letter to your ISP was heavy handed.

Anyway, if you need help setting up at a new host, (can’t believe I’m saying this…) I can help. It’s a matter of an hour to set up a new Wordpress install and redirect your nameservers. Free speech should always triumph. I’d like to think Mr Abanes, as a journalist, would agree on that.

119   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:47 am

I have a few suggestions that may help this situation in the positive direction. It may sound naive on my part because I believe that our brothers Ken and Richard will be able to reconcile. But if our not-so-good president, Thabo Mbeki, could get Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe to sign a document of intent to begin talks and shake hands in public, surely we can as Christians, with God on our side, convince Ken and Richard to talk and sort out their differences.

Here are things that I think we can do to help:
1. Stop writing on at who’s door the blame should be placed.
2. Ask the ODM sites to do the same. If writers who have their respect can do it, it will be most helpful.
3. Pray for Ken and Richard that God will work in both of their hearts to bring them together in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.
4. Send them each messages asking them to consider reconciling with each other.
5. Find someone who can be an arbitrator. This person will have to be respected by both (It might prove to be very difficult to find such a person).

Just think of the wonderful testimony this can be if reconciliation happens and they can issue a press release together stating their forgiveness of each other and the agreement they have reached.

The-naive-South-African-who-believes-what-happened-in-South-Africa-can-happen-in-the-internet-church-world.
– Eugene

120   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 6:31 am

Tim,

If it was the ISP that took it to theire legal dept, the Richard Abanes is not to blame…

And again… the fruit is that Ken could have took down one post and decided to take his whole site down… so whose fault is this really?

Come on Tim… open your eyes… Ken is playing this for all he can.

Also… where was the cry when Ingrid who has at least twice used lawyer to shut down or threaten other site… like this one? Where was you cry… is that also the fruit of Rick Warren? Good grief my dear friend, get a grip. LOL! = )

iggy

Not related: I do hope you are doing better… sometime give me an update OK?
Still praying for you and your family…

121   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 8:16 am

Wow…

A couple of things (and I may say this rather firmly)

1) The First Amendment is not in any danger because some blogger with an ax to grind got his site pulled. For those with a little bit of knowledge it takes quite a bit to change an Amendment. And I’ve yet to see the Christian community chant “the 1st Amendment” when someone who they don’t agree with gets shut down. No they revel in it and shout “God is good”

2) The only person (for the 3rd time) that is able to determine what is slander against him is Richard. He doesn’t need to “show us” or “prove it” or “defend how it was” he merely needs to say “it’s slander or libel”. I for one know that this is not the first time Kens ISP got contacted for his ridiculous sham of a ministry. Maybe they had enough.

3) I don’t care that Ken’s site got canned. He should have all of it backed up and he can very easily upload everything again. I hope and pray he wouldn’t but he probably will. But in the mere chance he didn’t I consider it an act of God and he is after all sovereign.

4) I support Richards right to pursue any action he deemed necessary, this side of the law, to have a missive removed about him.

If I think of more I’ll be back.

122   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
July 28th, 2008 at 9:32 am

Does this mean that “the Lord saw fit” to take apprising down? I mean, anything that has ever happened at apprising was something that the Lord saw fit to do.

123   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Nathan,

Of course! It was in God’s sovereign plan that this happened. And, it will ultimately be for the good (making us look more like Jesus) of both Ken and RA.

It does not change the fact that RA was wrong in the way that he approached this, and this should scare the pants off of sites like this which offend and poke people in their eyes on a regular basis.

It is also pathetic that a award winning Christian apologist and author such as RA has issue (whatever it is he refuses to point out) with an opinion article written three years ago which NO ONE was reading. Now, the opposite effect has happened; by his own attack of that article, readership has increased! He drew attention to it by his own foolish pride!

We need to stop going outside the church. God prescribed a way to deal with issues that we should follow so that we do not look like IDIOTS to the outside world.

124   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am

It does not change the fact that RA was wrong in the way that he approached this, and this should scare the pants off of sites like this which offend and poke people in their eyes on a regular basis.

Oh my gosh…I’m gonna scream.

Richard had ever right to take the action he did.

Just like if your Pastor was bilking the church for thousands of dollars you would take legal action. Or if you and another Christian got into a car accident you would contact his secular insurance company to sort it out. Or if you a Christian doctor did a poor job in operating on you, legal action would be taken.

We need to stop going outside the church. God prescribed a way to deal with issues that we should follow so that we do not look like IDIOTS to the outside world.

Is that really the reason God wants to handle things in the church first? And here I always thought it was for the unity of the body. Which by the way Ken has never been concerned with.

125   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 9:50 am

IMPORTANT ANSWERS AND CLOSING CHALLENGE —-

_________________
SANDMAN: If what he had written was damaging so why take action now as opposed to some time sooner?

ABANES: I have/had my reasons.
___________________________
CHRIS: Ken had been asked many times on this forum alone to remove slanderous material. Which he refused to acknowledge as slanderous. Much of the dialogue between Ken and Richard can be found here. It is my belief that Richard tried privately and publicly to address the issues that Ken had with him. Ken refused.

ABANES: Thank you.
__________________________
CHRIS: The burden of proof is not on Richard to prove he was slandered the burden of proof is on Ken to prove what was written wasn’t slanderous. Ken would only need to support his claims as truthful and accurate nothing more.

ABANES: Thank you again.
__________________________
CHRIS: Noting Richards point that he IS a professional writer who makes a living by his ability to accurately research and write about the Occult he could very easily be undermined by the rogue ramblings of anybody with an internet connection. Cedarville and Shane Claiborne ring a bell for anyone.

ABANES: Aaaaaaaahhhhh, and a light shines in the midst of darkness. You are a smart cookie and getting warmer, warmer, warmer.
_________________________
CHRIS: Do you know how this fire would have never become a run away fire? If Ken would have merely taken down the article with nary a word.

ABANES: Triple thank you.
_________________________
RICK: Or if Richard had just let it go as well.

ABANES: Dude, I didn’t force his hand. I couldn’t let go of anything connected with his website being kicked. He CHOSE for that to become a reality. That’s nothing I even wanted!
________________________
KEITH: I knew he couldn’t resist further publicity and not comment here.

ABANES: Another nice accusation about my actual character and motives. tsk tsk tsk. The fact is that I’ve been commenting here now for quite some time and feel a part of this community.
________________________
JOE M: Those who are all upset that RA threatened to sue KS crack me up. No, he didn’t. He wanted IPower to bring a blog that was not meeting the TOS its owner agreed to abide by when he set up his **ahem** ministry in line with said TOS.

ABANES: And it’s so simple for some. I wonder why not for others?
_________________________
RICK: I have seen someone on Mike Ratliff’s site claim Abanes is not saved

ABANES: Oh THAT old charge. They need to get in line. The profanity also keeps rollling into my email box from ken’s supporters, too. Wow, they are so godly, it’s just staggering.
________________________
JOE M. The IPS was.

ABANES: Actually, technically speaking, the ISP wasn’t threatened with litigation either. The template I used actually just says I have no wish to involve the ISP in legal action. I don’t know who wrote this, but it is VERY cleverly and thoughtfully worded so as to NOT threaten an actual lawsuit.
________________________
JERRY: People blogging on the internet, in public, are bound by the TOS of the ISP they contract with. Period. It is the internet. It’s blogging. But that does not mean there are no rules.

ABANES: This is sooooo my point. Where do “Christians” get off using two passages OUT OF CONTEXT to justify an apparent to say/do anything they want to say/do publicly on the Internet?

That’s what this is turning out to show — not to mention how so many Christians, the same one’s declaring my so-called sin, are turning around and using: threats, profanity/obscenity, unbiblical condemnations to hell (suddenly writing an ISP has become the measuring rod to see if someone is in/out of the kingdom). And they’re doing it all in the name of God and holiness! Say whhhhhaaahh?
________________________
IGGY: remember this was over ONE POST!

ABANES: This is an AMAZING little fact that an incredible amount of people are blowing past, as well as the little fact that i never asked for Ken’s website to be removed. That is ENTIRELY Ken’s little drama he created. As I’ve noted elsewhere, TOS complaints fly around the Internet daily. And people, generally speaking, just do not react the way Ken reacted. His response was truly bizarre, IMHO.

Here’s what’s really interesting — and true. If Ken would have just responded by simply taking down the article, or re-writing it to fall inline with his claim that it was about my theology, he could have put it back up. Hey, no big deal! And there would have been nothing to talk about. Hmmmm.
_________________________
TIM WIRTH: He cant do it because there was no slander or libel in this article.

ABANES: Read up on slander and libel. And as for quotes, please use a quote somewhere that tells me I owe you, or anyone else, quotes (which I do possess). But here’s a clue, Mr. Wirth, since you love quotes.

Please find a quote in that article that discusses/critiques my theology, doctrine, biblical interpretations. You can pick something that applies to any number of doctrinal issues, I would think, if that article is an analysis of my doctrine. And here’s the truth: You can’t do it because there is nothing about my doctrine/theology in that article.
___________________________
Pastorboy: If you cannot see the clear difference, you need help.

ABANES: If you cannot see the clear similarity, you need help. Of course, since Ingrid is on your team, you cannot see that. :-)
___________________________
TIM WIRTH: Well in my opinion Abanes was looking for press to help boost book sales and he got it.

ABANES: LoL — and the baseless accusations and assumption that seek to impugn my personal/professional character and integrity just keep piling up. Absolutely amazing. This is a stunning display of all kinds of things for all the world to see.
___________________________
JOHN: I agree with you that Arbanes seems to have some pretty thin skin for an author.

ABANES: hey, John. I think you’re missing my reasons and my motivation entirely. Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. For FAR TOO LONG there has been NO accountability/responsibility in the so-caleld “apologetic” and “discernment” world. I am trying, and I have been trying to change that in my own way.

Put ALL of my motivation there. It has nothing to do with defending myself per se (although that is mixed in there somewhere), but with holding people accountable who like to talk a good line about accountability, but when faced with having actually BE accountable, respond……well, the way you are seeing Ken and the other ODMs respond.
____________________________
JOHN: What does Warren have to do with all this exactly?

ABANES: Good question. Answer; Absolutely nothing.
___________________________
JOHN: I don’t believe Mr. Abanes (note spelling) meant for this to happen.

ABANES: Ken has orchestrated ALL of this, including the deletion of his own website either to: a) become the martyr hero; b) get rid of a website he didn’t want anyway; or c) use it as sensational (and again, slanderous) subject-matter for his other website, http://christianresearchnetwork.com/. Look at how many glorious accusations he and the ODMS have now been able to hurl in my direction with no proof whatsoever, thanks to his little melodrama:

1. I am now a “Champion of Liberals” – HA HA HA HA. ROFL. Me, a liberal. gracious. Hey, Ken, prove it.
2. I am singlehandedly bringing the downfall of Matt. 18 and the whole First Amendment – riiiiight.
3. My action was a result of all things Rick Warren, Saddleback, and PDC (sure, let’s make sure we dump a few serial murders, some drive by shootings, high gas prices, crooked pharmacy companies, and the war in iraq on Warren, Saddleback, and PDC, too).
4. “Web Hosting Service Caves To Purpose Driven Pressure” — WHAT??
5. Yeah, and I’m guilty of plagiarism, too, and copyright infringement!! Oh my!! Hmmm, how odd my two most recent book contracts are for the very same publisher who published the book from which I allegedly stole. Anyone see that as an indication of something?

Some interesting points to ponder, I think.
____________________________
EUGENE: Pray for Ken and Richard that God will work in both of their hearts to bring them together in a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation.

ABANES: I am totally up for that. Here are two offers that, so far, not a single person, including Ken, has taken up:

“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.

“I challenge ANYONE to find ANY criticisms/observations/corrections in that Ken Silva article that discusses my theology or doctrinal beliefs. Such material is not there. That article was personal in all its attacks. It was nothing more than an article deliberately designed to impugn my personal/professional integrity.”

So, I open the door for Ken to begin reconciliation by telling the world exactly where he disagrees with my doctrinal views: theology, soteriology, thanatology, eschatology, or sanctification.

I will debate him on any of these point her on .INFO, using 2 moderators — one that he chooses and one that I choose.

Richard Abanes

126   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am

Unfortunately Richard, I would say you made a strategic error on this one. The ODM response seems to be pre-meditated and is flaming their fan base to near hysteria. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. (But maybe read about it in The Crucible). The duplicity they are showing is astounding.

P.S. I am sorry you are receiving profanity-laced hate mail. I will try to keep the profanity out of mine! :-)

127   J    http://www.urgentprayers.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am

http://www.prophecyfellowship.org/showthread.php?t=327346

Saddleback SPOKESMOUTH

Richard Abanes Threatens Web Host Company with Legal Action

128   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am

ABANES: I am totally up for that.

Thank you Richard for being open to reach reconciliation with Ken. I will keep trying until Ken also declares himself open to talk and reach reconciliation with you.

I will debate him on any of these point her on .INFO, using 2 moderators — one that he chooses and one that I choose.

The idea of 2 moderators or mediators – each chosen by the other is a great idea. I am not convinced, though, that debate on a blog, open for the public to see is the best way to reach reconciliation. It might rather spark more animosity.

129   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am

Richard,

I appreciate your desire to introduce a little accountability to the ODM’s. God knows they need it. Still, the removal of Ken’s whole site is an over-reaction on the part of the ISP. Granted it’s one that Ken could have prevented, but I have to say if I were in his shoes and being threatened by my ISP, I’m not sure I’d go along with it either. It feels too much like being bullied.

Anyway, since it was never your intention, why not ask the ISP to restore his site? As it is, I think the over-reaction of the ISP is liable to turn Ken into a sympathetic figure.

130   J    http://www.urgentprayers.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:22 am

I think if Abanes and Silva want to talk over their differences

they should go on Noah Hutchings radio show

http://www.swrc.com

131   KyleAndrews    http://no
July 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Oh boy it’s hit the fan now. Check out ChristianNewswire.com. Also, I saw a link on a secular blogger rights page as well. Google Abanes and blog and it will come up.

132   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am

And the world sneers at the downfall of Christianity~ all because RA got his feelings hurt….

It is sad.

133   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am

Pastorboy,

Please consider point #1 on my comment at #119.

134   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am

ER

I have considered it, and I still feel that if RA hadn’t gotten his feelings hurt from a three year old article that no one was reading this would not be happening.

Unfortunately, it backfired on Abanes, more people than ever are reading that article and looking for that site.

It is sad, but true, that had RA never sent the letter in question, we would not be having that discussion, would we?

135   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am

ER

I have considered it, and I still feel that if RA hadn’t gotten his feelings hurt from a three year old article that no one was reading this would not be happening.

Unfortunately, it backfired on Abanes, more people than ever are reading that article and looking for that site.

It is sad, but true, that had RA never sent the letter in question, we would not be having that discussion, would we?

John you truly are masterful at missing the point.
Your false dichotomy works a little something like this.

If my child wasn’t so thin skinned when someone called him names on the playground and if he hadn’t gone to the principal the bully who called him names would never have gotten detention. See it’s my sons fault.

136   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am

Oh boy it’s hit the fan now. Check out ChristianNewswire.com.

Yeah because the guy who wrote the article that he submitted to CNW also writes for CRN.com I’m sure that’s not biased.

137   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

ER

I have considered it, and I still feel that if RA hadn’t gotten his feelings hurt from a three year old article that no one was reading this would not be happening.

Pastorboy, my point is that by laying the blame at either Richard’s or Ken’s door does not help reaching some positive conclusion to this saga. It will just make the church look more like IDIOTS as you have stated.

138   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Chris: If my child wasn’t so thin skinned when someone called him names on the playground and if he hadn’t gone to the principal the bully who called him names would never have gotten detention. See it’s my sons fault.

False dichotomy. It’s more like two editors on rival high school elementary school news papers.

139   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Kyle: Oh boy it’s hit the fan now. Check out ChristianNewswire.com.

Oh, I clicked on the nearby “Could Aliens Become Spiritual Mentors” article by mistake and it took a few seconds to realize I was on the wrong thread.

140   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

JH,

Oh, I clicked on the nearby “Could Aliens Become Spiritual Mentors” article by mistake and it took a few seconds to realize I was on the wrong thread.

LOL!

iggy

141   Lane Chaplin    http://www.lanechaplin.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Did you all see this? It seems that this issue is picking up quite a bit of attention.:

http://christiannewswire.com/news/332947299.html

142   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I was reading this in Romans 1 today:

They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, un-loving and unmerciful.

This was written about the lost of course, but I’m having trouble trying to distinguish between the “lost” and the “saved” right now.

143   Kent    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

RA: Second, it was NEVER my intention for Silva’s website to be removed. I cannot even begin to understand why did chose this course of action, rather than just removing the article.

Kent: So, Ken should have taken down whatever Richard says he should have, and all would have been good in Richards world? And then when Richard doesn’t like the next article that Ken or whoever writes, then that should taken down as well? As long as we all comply with Richard then we won’t have our sites removed, and if we don’t comply, then by golly, it’s just your own darn fault! or can not write about?
Is anyone else smelling what we’re stepping in here.
Way to go Richard.

144   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

CHRIS ROSBROUGH THREATENS RICHARD ABANES WITH FULLBLOWN LEGAL ACTION ONLINE:
_______________
READ IT FOR YOURSELF – July 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm post

Richard,

This sword cuts both ways Richard. Let this comment serve as a legal notice to you.

Unless, you

1. Publicly apologize for falsely claiming that I say that Rick Warren teaches salvation by works.

2. Rescind and apologize for the unfounded and libelous comments that you made about me claiming that I:

A. Have done damage to the body of Christ through the means of “slander, lies, libel, and deceit”

B. That I “spoon feed” lies to my adoring fans.

Then I will seek the fullest legal recourse allowed under U.S. Law.

You have until 12 PM Pacific time on Monday July 28th to comply.

These statements of yours are not only Objectionable, they are libelous and I will no longer idly sit by and allow you to publish these lies about me.

This is no joke. You and your ISP will be hearing from my attorney if you do not comply.

Chris Rosebrough

145   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

RICK: So Rick, has anyone been convinced to see a different point of view?

RICK: No, everyone seems to just be articulating their own view.

RICK: Well do you believe anyone will change?

RICK: Judging from past issues, I would say no.

RICK: Do you believe the parties involved are really open to reconciliation?

RICK: I would have to say no.

RICK: Out of all you’ve seen and heard, who do you believe has had the most balanced and Biblical assessment of the entire issue?

RICK: Me.

RICK: Thank you, Rick, for your time and insight. I appreciate your unassailable perspective and your unbiased approach toeverything that can be considered truth.

RICK: You are very welcome, I remain always accessible for a personal condescension to promote futher illumination.

:cool:

146   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

CHRIS ROSBROUGH THREATENS RICHARD ABANES WITH FULLBLOWN LEGAL ACTION ONLINE:

Once again showing they do not practice what they condmen others for…

sick…

iggy

147   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

If anyone thinks that Ken isn’t loving every moment of this whole debacle, then they need a reality check. Ken is like a guy throwing rocks at a hornets’ nest. Don’t start sniveling when you get stung.

I’m not saying everything was handled correctly, but in no way is Silva a victim.

It’s kind of ironic to me that the people who insist we’re in a “Truth War” act shocked when they meet resistance.

148   Wes    http://www.nopearlsb4swine.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

In reading through this, it still feels to me like you guys are missing the point. Is it a desirable event to have blogs pulled because someone doesn’t like the contents of the blog? That’s what happened here, and I don’t see how that doesn’t have a potential adverse effect on everyone here. By the way Richard, if Ken’s article was defamatory, then you should take it to the law and have them make the determination, and Ken should be held accountable for it. But I’m with Rick on this one – your email CLEARLY implied legal action. I’m a lawyer for a company and, if faced with potential action, we frequently make decisions which are designed to limit our risk exposure or minimize company expense. If you didn’t know you’d shut him down, you do now.

Here’s my point: If Ken Silva defamed you, take it to the law or resolve the offense bibilically – but that’s not for you to unilaterally decide. If it’s not defamatory then I for one will defend his right to say it. I think this behavior from you is small and unloving. Will you contact my ISP?

149   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Wes,
The thing is this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Everyone who has a blog, unless it’s run off of their own personal server, has some sort of agreement with an ISP. If you violate that, than it’s a breech of contract, plain and simple.

It’s like renting an apartment. Do something stupid enough, and the landlord has every right to kick you out.

150   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

I took Chris’ ROSBROUGH’s statement as satire. Was that a real threat? I’m soOOOoooo confused. OK one more time . . . who are the good guys?

151   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Chris Rosebrough: This is no joke. You and your ISP will be hearing from my attorney if you do not comply.

R. Abanes

Seems clear to me.

152   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Phil – spot on. There is more going on behind the scenes of both camps than we will ever know. I think they have both been to the Bene Gesserit school of intreague if you ask me.

153   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

JOhn HUges,

I have always been very upfront and open about my motivation. I even stated it above:

“Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. Truth is the issue. For FAR TOO LONG there has been NO accountability/responsibility in the so-called “apologetic” and “discernment” world. I am trying, and I have been trying to change that in my own way.

Put ALL of my motivation there. It has nothing to do with defending myself per se (although that is mixed in there somewhere), but with holding people accountable who like to talk a good line about accountability, but when faced with having actually BE accountable, respond……well, the way you are seeing Ken and the other ODMs respond.”

That’s really all there is to it, as far as I am concerned.

R. Abanes

154   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

OK one more time . . . who are the good guys?

One day a vehement capitalist and a vehement socialist were arguing as to which system was better. A bystander jumped into the fray and settled the argument instantly. “Under capitalism,” he said, “people devour people. Under socialism it’s the other way around.”

What a complete mockery all of this:

a) EMBARRASSING: the initial issue of trying to get a web page removed because of what was written – embarrassing from a Christian standpoint. I can just see Jesus and the disciples lobbying Herod to get the Sanhedrin to back off.

b) BE HONEST: there is NO DOUBT that the letter sent was inuendo to conjure up the prospects of a forthcoming lawsuit. Anyone who can’t see through this is wilfully blind. Don’t hide behind and couch yourself in wordplay.

c) GLEEFUL VINDICATION: sure, there is NO DOUBT the so-called ODMs are loving every second of this and the action has dramatically backfired on Richard Abanes who probably (contrary to what he said) had a few moments of enjoyment when this tornado was in its infancy.

Lots to learn here. If I didn’t know anything about the Lord, I’d have to declare that it’s a wonder at all He even bothers with us when things like this happen.

155   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

JH,

I took Chris’ ROSBROUGH’s statement as satire. Was that a real threat? I’m soOOOoooo confused. OK one more time . . . who are the good guys?

It seems like an ODM would do things… “Your wrong, so I will do it back to you…” “Your unbiblical… though I have already done it twice… ”

Tit for tat… eye for an eye… no grace, mercy or loving kindness…

It is using Jesus to judge and condemn others… now that is unbiblical.

iggy

156   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Praise the LORD! Christians suing (threatening to sue) each other over WORDS. No wonder my atheist boss thinks all Christians are idiots.

“Chris Rosebrough: This is no joke.” Then why am I LAUGHING so hard. Good grief.

157   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

“Truth is the issue.”

You can’t handle the truth. You want the real truth?

None of us even care if we are acting like Jesus.

Truth – circa A.D. 2008

158   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Richard: Truth is the issue.

Richard. I really hope that is true :-) But I have become cynical of late. I parted ways with CRN a couple of years ago and the only commentator I trust implicitly is Rick :-) . It’s all RW’s fault anyway.

159   merry    
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Where is Jesus in all of this?

We’ve discussed Christians’ rights, what Christians are like, what they should be like, etc, etc, but no one has paused to ask ‘What does God think of all this?’

Tell me, did anyone consult God before hiring attorneys right and left? (I’m asking this of ODM bloggers who might be reading this as well.)

This is getting too melodramatic. Come on guys, I hardly think this is the downfall of Christianity! :) (Although it might be if future generations of Christians continue to follow our example.)

160   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

This is so tragic! We are pointing at their sin they at our’s. Now the world must decide who is right?

Let me spell out the solution:

F-O-R-G-I-V-E Y-O-U-R B-R-O-T-H-E-R

Matthew 5:21″You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,[c]‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23″Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
25″Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. (NIV)

161   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Lane – publishing a press release to Christian News Wire doesn’t necessarily require “picking up a lot of attention” at all. It is a place most anyone can go to issue a “press release”.

You might note several others submitted in the same timeframe as the one about apprising:

Could Aliens Become Spiritual Mentors (that being extra-terrestrial aliens, not ones of the illegal variety)

A PR Firm Announces it Received Two More Clients

Today’s Poets Provide Fresh Literary Perspectives on the Most Popular Book of the Bible

New Book Helps Catholics Nail Down the Facts of Their Faith (A pro-Catholic Article, BtW)

Fundies having a tizzy is nothing new in the Christian blogosphere.

This is not an issue of freedom of speech, and it doesn’t really worry me a whit. I know my ISP personally, and empty threats wouldn’t shut us down. Additionally, I am blessed to have enough legal contacts to parry armchair threats, enough integrity to deal with legitimate issues of libel/copyright infringement in an above-board manner, and (hopefully) enough common sense to nip such things in the bud w/o public hue and cry.

162   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Why do you not rather take wrong? Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
God’s Word.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Man’s word.

163   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Could Aliens Become Spiritual Mentors

If Oprah can do it, why not?

I, for one, welcome our alien overlords!

164   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

And the world sneers at the downfall of Christianity~ all because RA got his feelings hurt….

Now who’s the drama queen?

The downfall of Christianity somehow equated to a trashy website being flushed down the memory hole?

The world has sneered at Christianity for about 2000 years now, and it is truly sad when the church provides the ammo. In this particular case, though, there’s enough blame to spread on the part of both individuals.

165   Mill    
July 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

“2) The only person (for the 3rd time) that is able to determine what is slander against him is Richard. He doesn’t need to “show us” or “prove it” or “defend how it was” he merely needs to say “it’s slander or libel”.”

The Courts would disagree. That’s how they determine slander: they have a standard by which to judge.

166   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I think they have both been to the Bene Gesserit school of intreague if you ask me.

The spice must flow…

167   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

You think Chris R’s threat was satire? This entire thing has morphed into tragic satire. There are people with children with cancer, children who’ve lost their father in Iraq, parents whose children have rejected Christ, and a million other heartbreaking situations.

And a blog goes down unjustly and we act like we’re in the lion’s den. Ken has said some things that were wrong, Richard was wrong in contacting the ISP, and now everyone is engaged in one giant episode of wrong.

“So you ride yourselves over the fields,
And you make all your animal deals,
And your wise men don’t know how it feels,
To be THICK AS A BRICK

168   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Paul C: I can just see Jesus and the disciples lobbying Herod to get the Sanhedrin to back off.

Maybe I’m wrong, but didn’t Paul petition Caesar to protect himself from the Sanhedrin?

Paul C: there is NO DOUBT that the letter sent was inuendo to conjure up the prospects of a forthcoming lawsuit.

I agree. Also, being from the business world, this type of letter is rather commonplace, and is understood to occur before a person even contacts a lawyer. Oftimes, if they carry through on the threat, their lawyer gives them the straight dope that they have no case and nothing ever happens. It’s a strong-arm tactic, and was likely out-of-place in this instance.

Paul C: there is NO DOUBT the so-called ODMs are loving every second of this

No kidding. When you’re admittedly low on funds, getting to play the “I’m a martyr” card is sure to bring some cash, particular if your audience is stupid enough to believe you, rather than seeing the truth of your self-inflicted wounds…

169   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Before Chris R. forced me to close the comments thread with his very interesting full-bloown lawsuit threat, I had already been compared to:

a) Pontius Pilate; and
b) Josef Goebbels. Adlolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda

WOW. And I can’t even print what has been coming through into my email box — the threats, obscenity/profanity, and condemnations (all from Ken Silva’s “Christian” fan base).

I wonder how many ODMs will write the same kind of articles and number of articles against Chris R. Hmmm, my guess is “0.”

But what we do have is ding ding ding – an article from CHRISTIAN RESEARCH NETWORK supporting Chris Rosebrough’s actions!!!! No surprise:

“Chris Rosebrough of ExtremeTheology.com is not lying down and allowing Richard Abanes’ attack against Discernment blogs to go unchallenged.”

My Lord, Jesus, this is pathetic.

R. Abanes

170   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Am I the only one asking these men to reconcile to each other? Do you really think I am naive in thinking it possible? Please help in working towards this goal.

171   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

You play the martyr card as well, Richard. Enough.

172   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Gene – there is only one way to reconciliation. That is if one party is willing to accept blame without any expectation of reciprocity from the other party.

In other words – a demonstration of the cross.

173   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Gene – there is only one way to reconciliation. That is if one party is willing to accept blame without any expectation of reciprocity from the other party.

There might be a process involved to get to this point Rick. Are you willing to help in this process?

174   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Chris L: Maybe I’m wrong, but didn’t Paul petition Caesar to protect himself from the Sanhedrin?

Remember, Festus was trying to play to the Jews and trying to catch Paul with guile (basically, sending him to a death sentence). Paul wasn’t afraid to die, but desired to go to Rome and meet the saints there to impart to them his spiritual gifts and see them established. He wasn’t trying to escape anything but saw it as an opportunity to reach the metropolis of Rome with the gospel – which God enabled him to do effectively.

175   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Gene – of course.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.

176   Bo Diaz    
July 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

WOW. And I can’t even print what has been coming through into my email box — the threats, obscenity/profanity, and condemnations (all from Ken Silva’s “Christian” fan base).

Now, that’d be interesting to see.

177   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Rick: You play the martyr card as well, Richard. Enough.

RA: Riiiight. You’ve disappointed me. You can’t see what’s going on? Really? I thoght you to be more discerning.

RAbanes

178   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

RA: My Lord, Jesus, this is pathetic.

… he says like the kid in California who thought he’d have a little fun and kindle a fire under a dry bush in the woods only to see the flames engulf 100 acres of forest…

As I said earlier, this is being carefully orchestrated into a fullblown firestorm to be sure, but to claim clemency and stand back and watch the flames, shaking your head in innocency is disingenuous.

179   John Hughes    
July 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Galatians 5:15 – But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

There comes a time when you just have to let things run their course. It will all be over soon.

180   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Paul’s appeal to Ceasar cost him his life. But it gave him additional OPPORTUNITIES TO WITNESS, it did nor protect his future earning power.

181   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

BO: Now, that’d be interesting to see.

RA: Yes, indeed. But you see, unlike some people, I actually respect the laws of the land, and will not post this garbage online in order to remain in obedience to the government that God has placed over me.

And also I will not show in order to avoid revealing to the world some of the nastiest hate mail I’ve ever received — all in the name of Jesus. It out-distances hate mail I’ve gotten from Mormons, Wiccans, New Agers, nearly everyone.

Interesting, huh? Darkness is being exposed rather forcefully, I do believe. This boil on the church’s underside has been festering for far too long.

Look, and see, what is in the church, under the disguise of holiness, righteous, and discernment.

R. Abanes

182   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Thank you Rick. I have sent emails to each of them asking them to consider talking to each other in some way with 2 mediators chosen by each of them to fascilitate such a discussion in private.

I believe a solution is possible and will continue praying for that.

It is bedtime in SA, so until tomorrow. May God grant us peace.
Eugene

BTW Rick, I commented on your A Lesson to be Learned article yesterday but it doesn’t show. Perhaps it was to slanderous Rick? :x

183   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Take the prove Richard Abanes is the victiom of libel test here

184   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Richard – believe me, I know what is going on. It is being orchestrated by the enemy of our souls. You ARE a gifted writer and apologist, and you have been wrongly accused of being soft on Mormons and other things.

But you made a mistake, just like all of us have. You do not see it perhaps, but I pray you will. But youare compounding that mistake by allowing yourself to be drawn further into a completely unproductive and even distructive scenario.

I would counsel you to take a couple of weeks to pray and seek God without the distraction that will only grow worse. I have suggested the same to Ken.

Both he and you are my brothers in Christ and I both love you and am periodically frustrated by you both, just like my earthly brothers. Peace to both of you, this situation is not worth your time, it will take care of itself.

185   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Richard, please stop stoking the fire from your side. You might think you are not doing it but from my perspective that is what you are doing. I ask the same from all other commentators.

Good night. :z

186   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Never received it, Gene. Sorry. BTW _ have you ever read the magazine Prepare the Way that circulates in Africa?

187   Wes    http://www.nopearlsb4swine.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Phil,

“The thing is this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. … If you violate [the agreement with an ISP]…than it’s a breech of contract, plain and simple…Do something stupid enough, and the landlord has every right to kick you out.”

You miss my point, which is this: Who says there was a violation? The ISP didn’t. It just responded to a compliant. I’m suggesting this: Bring the compliant to someone to arbitrate it and determine its validity. If its a legal issue, then a court ought to decide before terminating a contract right. As to the matter of disagreement between Christians, the Church ought to decide – I’m certain Messrs. Abane and Silva could find an agreeable person to decide.

What doesn’t seem right is that there was no determination of the validity of Richard’s claimed defamation. And ironically, the reaction to Ken Silva is at least as personal and defamatory as anything in the article he wrote.

It isn’t “first amendment” or “censorship” – it’s bullying. And all of us who blog are open to the same abuse.

188   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Wes,
I would assume the fact that the ISP pulled the site pretty much means they are saying there was a violation. If they didn’t and were so easily pushed over, than Ken is probably better off somewhere else, then.

Seriously, I think anyone who calls himself a “blogger” takes himself too seriously. This is the internet folks – it’s not the real world…

189   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Am I the only one asking these men to reconcile to each other?

No.

190   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

ABANES OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CHRIS ROSEBROUGH LAWSUIT THREAT

RAbanes

191   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Richard,

Though I do not personally see what you did deserves such a reaction, nor do I see what you did wrong… or sinful or whatever…

I want to say I forgive you… since no one else seems to want to…

iggy

192   John    http://www.verumserum.com
July 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I just read the actual article that started all this. Ken spends about 1000 words attacking Richard’s choice of music. So it is a rather personal attack.

Still, I don’t understand why Mr. Abanes wouldn’t just take an hour and point out the myriad flaws in Ken’s reasoning. It wouldn’t have been hard to do. I still wish he would ask the ISP to reinstate Ken’s site and short-circuit all this nonsense.

But I can’t resist pointing out that so much of Ken’s article was an attempt to tie Mr. Abanes to Rick Warren and the “fruit” of his teaching. So are any of the ODM’s going to take responsibility for the hate mail Mr. Abanes is receiving on their behalf? This is surely the lowest point in this whole fiasco. Is that the “fruit” of your teaching or does it have nothing to do with you? I haven’t heard Pastorboy or anyone else championing Ken’s victimization acknowledge the hateful mob that supports their point of view yet. How about asking those people to take a breath and maybe even apologize for their behavior…?

193   amy    
July 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Richard,
Regarding your answer to my comments on your website about what I remembered about the article in question, I did not have the WRONG article in mind. I just looked at it again, thanks to its appearing on CRN :) .

Your comment #169:

WOW. And I can’t even print what has been coming through into my email box — the threats, obscenity/profanity, and condemnations (all from Ken Silva’s “Christian” fan base).

How do you know that they are ALL coming from the Ken Silva “Christian” fan base? I’d like to know.

That is a bit akin to some ODM classifying the threats, obscenity etc that come into them as ALL coming from “emergents,” or “purpose-driven sheep,” isn’t it?

Sounds a bit untrue, a bit slanderous to me; it seems like you would want to be extremely careful about what you write since you claim to have a high regard for truth.

But then maybe it’s true – perhaps you’ve personally had your lawyers check out each individual obnoxious writer to determine that yes indeed they do bear have a Ken Silva bumper sticker.

If you have done so, then please tell me, what does the fact that all these Ken Silva fans are obscene etc have to do with what you’ve done? Don’t even people with unlovely fans have the right to free speech?

Nobody can see the e-mails that you describe above. Many folks disagree with your use of “slander,” from seeing the article in question. How do we know we would agree with your other descriptions? Granted I might agree with most of what you would call obscenity/profanity.

But what is a “threat?” What is a “condemnation?” I think that my comment on your website and the similar one here (#75) speak condemnation to how you’ve handled this, and perhaps (God knows) to your character in general. But does that mean you shouldn’t consider that what is being said should be considered? I’ve seen polite, thoughtful and insightful comments written in concerned tones – yet they are condemnations of what you have done.

As in the slander issue, it seems as if we’re supposed to just take your word at what must statistically be an overgeneralization: ALL these types of e-mails are coming from Ken Silva’s fan base. I understand that people who run active websites have to comb through their e-mails daily to take the rubbish out . . . .

Could someone from “the Ken Silva fan club” write you a letter that fit justly into one of the categories above? Of course. Does they’re doing so change any of the basic issues folks are debating? Does it change who you are?

Surely there are many folks who would take issue with what you’ve done – who are not part of “Ken Silva’s “Christian” fan club.” “John,” for example, who, though he is by no means a part of KS’s fan club, deserves a good character medal for offering to help Ken restart his website.

The way that you’ve handled this situation – not just your bringing the issue to your ISP but your interactions with folks about it, would bother many people, people who could care less who “Ken Silva” is, people of varying faiths.

194   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

AMY: How do you know that they are ALL coming from the Ken Silva “Christian” fan base? I’d like to know.

RA: Uhm, because they all mention how much they love Ken and how he is a man of God called by the Lord to expose lies, and how I am of devil. That’s kind of a dead giveaway.

RAbanes

195   amy    
July 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

By the way I think that mail linking Richard Abanes action to Rick Warren and/or Purpose Driven is unfair to Rick Warren.

Just as a person is not responsible for their “fan club” (see above comment) – so a person is not responsible for their “fan author” unless he decides to take upon himself and support that “fan author’s” actions in some way.

I say the above with some caution. If I were in a situation in which people personally defended me using tactics that I thought were not biblical (saying “you’re going to burn,” obscenity, to those against me) I would feel that it was my responsibility to speak up.

It would be interesting to know Rick Warren’s take on this.

196   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

AMY: Regarding your answer to my comments on your website about what I remembered about the article in question

ABANES: Well, then I am rather surprised because Ken’s not defending himself per se throughout the article in question, he’s attacking me personally.

I quote John above: “I just read the actual article that started all this. Ken spends about 1000 words attacking Richard’s choice of music. So it is a rather personal attack….[snip].” That is the least of it. Where does he say anything about my theology, biblical interpretation, or doctrines? That is a question no one has STILL answered.
___________________
AMY: Sounds a bit untrue, a bit slanderous to me; it seems like you would want to be extremely careful about what you write since you claim to have a high regard for truth.

ABANES: Yes, well, I can’t really post private emails online now can I? That would be breaking the law — youi know, kind of like what ken did by posting my copyright protected private email to IPOWER?
___________________
AMY: The way that you’ve handled this situation – not just your bringing the issue to your ISP but your interactions with folks about it, would bother many people, people who could care less who “Ken Silva” is, people of varying faiths.

ABANES: Thanks for your opinion. Blessings.

RAbanes

197   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Richard,

Maybe you can do a post that edits out the names of the folks that back Ken… this would be an eye opener as to how “righteous” and Kind, and holy and well…. hypocritical they really are.

iggy

198   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm

AMY: It would be interesting to know Rick Warren’s take on this.

RA: Here — he’ll probably never even hear about it. And he wouldn’t care that much because it has nothing whatsoever to do with him.

RA

199   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

IGGY: Maybe you can do a post that edits out the names of the folks that back Ken… this would be an eye opener as to how “righteous” and Kind, and holy and well…. hypocritical they really are.

RA: Nope – just causing more problems. I’m ready to leave this behind and let the gnashing of teeth continue without me. I have things to do for God. This served to show the world what these people are really like, and to show that their worst fear seems to be accountability and responsibility for their words and actions.

RAbanes

200   Kent    
July 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

RA: Nope – just causing more problems. I’m ready to leave this behind and let the gnashing of teeth continue without me. I have things to do for God. This served to show the world what these people are really like, and to show that their worst fear seems to be accountability and responsibility for their words and actions.

You tell’m Richard! For 3 years you extended way to much grace on Ken. I’m glad that 3 years after the fact that you finally decided to do what’s right! I’m also so thankful you’ve decided to spare us from sharing what it was that was written that deserved such a promt action.

201   amy    
July 28th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

,

because they all mention how much they love Ken and how he is a man of God called by the Lord to expose lies, and how I am of devil. That’s kind of a dead giveaway.

because they all mention how much they love Ken and how he is a man of God called by the Lord to expose lies

All of them? Is there something wrong with their saying that?

I am of devil

They ALL said “You are of (the) devil?”

HOW MANY OF THESE E-MAILS WERE THERE that said these exact things, and how many were preceded or followed by obscenity/ profanity?

How did they word this last idea (You are of the devil)? Did they all say exactly the same thing? I can think of lots of ways to say something like that in a situation that I thought had been unscripturally handled – I bet you could to – and I wouldn’t consider that all of my words were unjust.

Regardless, what does “Ken’s fan club” have to do with the basic issues at hand?

Regarding the content of your article, if you go back and read what I wrote on your site, I wasn’t analyzing the article – I was telling you what I remembered it being about. I skimmed it and read about 90% of it. It does reference your accusation of Silva’s “attack” on Rick Warren’s and uses “attack” in parenthesis throughout. It seemed to me to be closely associated with the discussion you had had before. As I said, it’s what I remembered.

202   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Amy,

enough. if you don’t get my point, i’m sorry.

ra

203   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 5:06 pm

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts”

I have sucked every vestige of serious contemplation about this crisis. In the plane I am metaphorically travelling the pilot has turned on the “look for cynicism, humor, sarcasm, and a generally detached viewing” sign. It will have a better effect upon my already precarious mental situation! :lol:

What the world needs now, is love sweet love, no not just for some, but…

Oh just forget it!

204   richard abanes    http://abanes.com
July 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

I was just on Todd Wilken’s new Issues, Etc. radio show. The show will probably be up in a few days of you’re at all interested in it http://www.issuesetc.org/.

And with that, I am moving on. My next blog posts will be against New Agers Eckhart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey.

R. Abanes

205   Tim Wirth    http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

And again where was the slander or libel on Ken Silvas 3 year old article on Abanes?
Peace
Tim Wirth

206   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 28th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Good point, Tim – there were much fresher and more obvious examples of lies and slander on the apprising “ministries” site folks could have cited, though I don’t know they targeted RA…

207   Wes    http://www.nopearlsb4swine.com
July 28th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Phil

“Seriously, I think anyone who calls himself a “blogger” takes himself too seriously. This is the internet folks – it’s not the real world…

Perhaps you could spell that point out a little more clearly for me…

One Trackback/Ping

  1. This week in the Truth Wars! Ken Silva… the saga of evil! « The Online Discernmentalist Mafia    Jul 29 2008 / 6am:

    [...] It is great that she was able to do this again as she once was able to get those heretics at CRN.info (comment #22) to change a post she felt harmed her. I think this is great that we can live in a [...]