THE STORY
Earlier this day, after much thought and prayer, I decided to take some action against a defamatory/libelous article about me that has been up on the Internet for quite some time. This article, titled “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES” by Pastor Ken Silva (apprising.org) is filled with not just personal opinions, but slanderous innuendo, misleading statements about my character/faith, and negative implications about me that are meant to deliberately harm my professional/personal reputation as a Christian author.
In response, I contacted Mr. Silva’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) to inform them of my thoughts regarding the content of that particular article, and after doing so, asked them to please have Mr. Silva remove the article before I contacted my attorneys.
I did not, in that email, in any way express to the ISP what my reason for contacting the attorneys would be (see following section for quotes from my email).
KEN SILVA’S UNGODLY RESPONSE
Once contacted by his ISP, Ken Silva responded in a most ungracious, ungodly, unbiblical, and I might add, illegal way. He posted a highly sensational, inflammatory, and reactionary article declaring in big, bold letters:
“RICHARD ABANES TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES
OVER DEFAMATION-LIBEL?”
In this article he rants and raves about me suing him, how I had not contacted him, that I should have brought the issue “before the Body of Christ” before suing him, and on, and on, and on. But nothing in my email to his ISP mentions to them that I was actually suing him! I merely told his ISP:
1. Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I wanted IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM to remove this one particular article from its servers; and
2. I had no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in any legal suit
Most troubling was Silva’s response to the request that his own ISP had made. They asked him: “. . . please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” This was a fairly tame request, based on their analysis of the article.
There would be no more story to tell if Silva would have simply accepted the judgment of his ISP and removed the article. But no. Instead, Silva patched together an explosive, overblown, fictitious article that he could use to cry foul across the cyberspace universe—i.e., “RICHARD ABANES TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES OVER DEFAMATION-LIBEL?” And in it, he arrogantly and defiantly declared to the world: “I have absolutely no intention of removing that article.”
KEN SILVA BREAKS FEDERAL LAWS
Even more disturbing was how Silva then proceeded in his response article to not only make known his refusal to remove the libelous material (per his ISP’s request), but he went so far as to deliberately and willfully violate federal copyright laws that prohibit the publishing in any form of private emails. My email to IPOWERWEB was/is protected by not only privacy laws, but copyright laws, as indicated by the copyright notice on my email to IPOWER,NET, which reads:
“This email remains the sole property of its creator, Richard Abanes, c 2008, and is meant only for the recipient. It is not to be transmitted to any other person(s) for any reason without the expressed written consent of Richard Abanes. As unpublished material, it is also not to be reproduced privately or publicly for the viewing of others via any electronic or print format. Any reproduction of this email, in its entirety, or in part, will be considered a criminal act under Federal Copyright laws, which reserves all rights of distribution and publication to the creator and copyright holder, Richard Abanes.”
Pastor Silva willfully broke the laws of the land, which scripture tells us we are to follow. Romans 13:1-7 gives us the following instructions:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”
I quote gotquestions.org:
“Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land? . . . That passage makes it abundantly clear. We are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything – paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, showing respect, etc. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7, he was under the government of Rome, during the reign of Nero, perhaps that most evil of all the Roman Emperors. Paul still recognized that government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?”
This tells us quite a bit about Pastor Silva. He is a man who is not only willing to ignore the Terms of Service agreement he entered into with his own Internet Service Provider, but far worse, he is a man willing to deliberately break the laws of our free land—at least, insofar as copyright laws are concerned in this one instance. And, on top of that, after his own errors of judgment, shift blame for the situation onto someone else, coupling that blame shift with yet more false accusations.
THE BOTTOM LINE TRUTH
Here is the bottom line truth about this issue: I wrote Ken Silva’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) and asked them to please tell him to remove his libelous material. That is all.
But Ken Silva’s own stubborn spirit has blown this thing way , way, way out of proportion by turning it into something it is not. There are dozens of steps that can be taken by an individual after contacting an attorney that fall far short of a lawsuit. But Ken Silva, in attempting to again impugn my character, motives, and intentions, has reacted with his sensational article to provoke a reaction out of his readers.
If Mr. Silva is going to allege that I am “TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES,” then I suggest he produce the legal paperwork to back that allegation. Otherwise, he has simply created more reason to not take him seriously. I reiterate, as of this date, the truth is that I have done NOTHING but write Ken Silva’s ISP an email where I:
1) asked the legal department to xamine the above mentioned article I that found objectionable (i.e.,”"A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES”); and
2) request that the article be removed if they agreed it violated their Terms of Service.
The ISP has responded in my favor, and indeed, have asked Ken Silva to remove that isolated article. Interestingly, one of Ken’s own close associates—Ingrid Schlueter, Slice of Laodicea—when she was faced with a website that she felt had slandered/libeled her, ultimately ended up going for her attorney, who sent a threatening letter to the party who she felt had slandered her. As for me, I haven’t even contacted an attorney! I have merely contacted Silva’s ISP with my request for them to please make sure that one of their subscribers remains true to their Terms of Service. And as already noted, they examined the material and agreed with my assessment. Consequently, they contacted Silva and respectfully asked him to remove the article in question. He responded in a fashion not at all becoming of a pastor.
One final note—and I want this to be very clear—it is not my intention at all to shut down Ken Silva’s website. In fact, there is another article up at Mr. Silva’s website that is rather harsh and unforgiving of me: “SETTING RICHARD ABANES STRAIGHT ON MY RICK WARREN “ATTACK.” It takes me to task on a number of issues. In this article, he voices numerous arguments against various statements I have made online. However, I DID NOT MENTION this article at all to Silva’s ISP. Although I disagree with the remarks he makes in this article, I have nothing against him expressing his thoughts, and contrary opinions. But the other article about which I complained to his ISP was an entirely different matter. It was libelous, defamatory, and slanderous. And the ISP agreed with me. That is all.
~ Richard Abanes
[NOTE: The notification email sent to IPOWERWEB is a template I've had for years, which is useful for alerting various different parties of ISPs/message boards/companies of TOS violations, copyright infringements, and other unlawful actions by Internet users—e.g., posting pornographic materials, spam mail, etc., etc., etc.]
Do Not Be Surprised
Do not be surprised when some church leaders do not accept you, for there has always been people who hold high positions in churches who speak evil of men and women of God.
Many of God’s people over the centuries have come up against people like that. We read in 3 John v 9 & 10, of an elder called Diotrophes, who with foolish and malicious words spoke evil of the Apostles and who would not receive them or their teachings.
He loved to have pre-eminence among the local church at that time, and if any did not obey him, he would have them thrown out of the church. Have things really changed today?
EVANGELIST BILLY BOLITHO
http://www.evangelistbillybolitho.blogspot.com
Hey Richard,
Why didn’t you call Ken first and ask him to change what was wrong in the piece? You didn’t and instead used a canon against a brother in Christ rather than reaching out to appeal to him first. Also your ISP wouldn’t have a clue whether it’s true slander or not as they know nothing about this case other than they got your complaint and they don’t want trouble. This is not going to look good for your reputation, Richard. This is going to do more damage to you than some old 2005 article that nobody was even reading on a small website. You complain that Ken was sensationalist in his response. You have to be joking! Trying to force someone to edit their website by going to the ISP first is amazingly sensationalist behavior for someone who claims to be a believer. Ken is going to end up being a hero of the blog world, because if you get your way, every blogger is at risk for being threatened with shutdown by their ISP’s. All someone has to do is claim “slander, libel, defamation”. The ISP’s don’t have the time or resources to check out the claims so they’ll shut them down. You’ve over played your hand, Richard on this one. You say that you’re a respected apologist, but reputations can be lost pretty quickly when word spreads that you didn’t even bother to request changes in the piece but instead used bully tactics against a fellow believer. What a shame this is.
NOMORETEARS: Why didn’t you call Ken first and ask him to change what was wrong in the piece?
RA: Good comment/question.
1. Ken Silva has repeatedly shown to me (and others) that he cannot be reasoned with.
2. Ken Silva has consistently voiced his opinion that I am not someone with whom he wishes to dialogue because I am a a lying, worldly, sinful, deceptive product of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven madness. There’s not much talking to someone who sees you that way.
3. Ken Silva is desperately trying to make a tempest in a teapot. It is NOT unibiblical, ungodly, unethical, or immoral to simply write an Internet Service provider and alert them to a violation of Terms of Service by one of their customers. They saw the website article, read it, and made their own decision. Ken is trying to turn it into something it’s not — and he’s broken federal laws now in order to do it.
_________________________
NOMORETEARS: You didn’t and instead used a canon against a brother in Christ rather than reaching out to appeal to him first.
RA: A “canon”??? You’re kidding, right? Notifying an ISP that someone violated their TOS is a “canon against a brother in Christ.” Please show in scripture where this appears — “Thou shalt not notify an ISP about TOS violations.” There is not a HINT of anything wrong having been done against a “brother in Christ” by a simple notification an ISP. I think it’s really stretching things to say otherwise, don’t you think so? Again, this is NOT that big a deal. Ken is making it one. All he has to do is: 1) follow his ISP’s TOS; 2) remove one little article from his website per the request of his ISP. That’s all.
_________________________
NOMORETEARS: This is not going to look good for your reputation, Richard.
RA: Oh, Puh-lease. Now, you’re telling me that as a Christian I can’t contact an ISP and make a complaint about someone?
Okay, then can I not also call the cops if a neighbor who calls himself a Christian is continually having loud music play at 3 a.m.? Will that not “look good” on my reputation? Can I not complain to a store manager if a “Christian” at BEST BUYS sells me a lemon of a T.V. and also doesn’t explain that television’s functions accurately to me on the salesfloor? Will that not “look good” on my reputation?
Please, tell me how it can be just fine for Ken’s reputation for to not only stand defiantly against an ISP’s request, but to also deliberately make it even worse by violating copyright laws/privacy laws by posting a private email of mine on the Internet? Are you going to chastise him for clear violations of scripture? Or do I get all the condemnation for doing something that has nothing to do with any prohibitions in the Bible?
_________________________
NOMORETEARS: This is going to do more damage to you than some old 2005 article that nobody was even reading on a small website. You complain that Ken was sensationalist in his response. You have to be joking! Trying to force someone to edit their website by going to the ISP first is amazingly sensationalist behavior for someone who claims to be a believer.
RA: This is unbelievable. You keep defending a man who has deliberately broken the law. When will it all end.
_________________________
NOMORETEARS: Ken is going to end up being a hero of the blog world, because if you get your way, every blogger is at risk for being threatened with shutdown by their ISP’s.
RA: No, untrue. Ken is going to end up being a hero — as he already is — in his own mind.
_________________________
NOMORETEARS: All someone has to do is claim “slander, libel, defamation”. The ISP’s don’t have the time or resources to check out the claims so they’ll shut them down. You’ve over played your hand, Richard on this one. You say that you’re a respected apologist, but reputations can be lost pretty quickly when word spreads that you didn’t even bother to request changes in the piece but instead used bully tactics against a fellow believer. What a shame this is.
RA: More threats. That’s what’s sad. The truth is that I made an appeal to an ISP, which is my right to do, and is NOT unbiblical in the least. And you condemn me. ken, on the other hand, at best has posted a questionable article, which his ISP kindly asked him to take down, but instead of doing that, he goes even further and breaks the law — and he comes up smelling like a rose to you. That is what is so unbelievable to me.
Moreover, how about Ingrid Schuleter, Ken’s friend and close associate? I assume that you will be sending her an even more forceful condemnation since when she felt that she had been defamed, she went to her attorney and had them send a threatening letter! Read about the story yourself. Now what? Are you going to condemn Ingrid, too?
As “IGGY” has observed over at his blog, in the article, Ken Silva Lies about Richard Abanes Lawsuit: This highlights the high hypocrisy of the ODM as they turn their backs on one who does use a lawyer to shut down website and then attack someone who simply asks an ISP to shut down a website that has lies and slander as ‘research.’”
As for Ken, my friend, HE has made this an overblown mess — not me.
~ Richard Abanes
Yes, indeed, it is sad.
I find it very fascinating that a respected and published apologist would take to law against someone who really is just another blogger, a small church pastor of not near the fame or renown of Mr. Abanes.
1. Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I wanted IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM to remove this one particular article from its servers; and
2. I had no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in any legal suit
These two lines are very telling. You are indicating that you are going to law by saying you are going to attorneys and filing a possible legal suit. Now either this is not true ( a lie masked as a threat) and you have spoken falsely to intimidate, or you have made a true statement that you intend to go to law. It is one or the other.
Now we may disagree, Richard, (I might add strongly) on the heresy of Purpose Driven, the Message and the methods of your pastor, Rick Warren, his P.E.A.C.E. plan, etc. That is not slander. I may think that you are deceived in being an apologist for said Pastor/Plan/Method. That is also not slander. My opinion does not change who you are in fact. My opinion is meant to warn others (and you) about the deception they find themselves in the midst of. You can disagree with me, strongly. It is not slander! I can refuse to buy your books, and recommend based upon your view of purpose driven that since you agree with that philosophy, it taints your judgement in other areas That is an opinion (which may be wrong) but it is not slander.
This is a waste of your time and your talents, Richard. Give it up. If Ken is wrong, God will deal with him.
PASTORBOY: These two lines are very telling. You are indicating that you are going to law by saying you are going to attorneys and filing a possible legal suit. Now either this is not true ( a lie masked as a threat) and you have spoken falsely to intimidate, or you have made a true statement that you intend to go to law. It is one or the other.
RABANES: Actually, I answered this on several different levels in the main article above. Please read again since it is explained quite clearly. Also, did you miss this:
So, you might want to consider that information as well. It’s a template I have, mmmkay. If I have, as of right now, done anything unbiblical — please, feel free to point it out. As I said to NOMORETEARS: “There is not a HINT of anything wrong having been done against a “brother in Christ” by a simple notification an ISP. I think it’s really stretching things to say otherwise, don’t you think so?”
_____________________
PASTORBOY: If Ken is wrong, God will deal with him.
RABANES: Hmmm, I see. Okay, please email Ken Silva and tell him, “If Rick Warren or Richard Abanes are wrong, God will deal with them.” I’d be very interested to hear his response.
~ Richard Abanes
RA
I just read the article Ken wrote (which, I am sure, is an unintended consequence on your part; many people will do the same just to see what all the hub-bub is about). I honestly did not see the slander. I wonder if you would just tear one line, maybe two from that piece that you consider slanderous towards yourself.
I saw some stuff that might be construed as slander against Rick Warren, even against Robert Schuller. Note- I said construed. It is still just opinion.
Please give me some examples of what you consider slander. If I am correct, Ken has no worries if this did come to law.
Pastorboy,
HOLD ON!!!
What about ken breaking federal copyright laws and privacy laws by illegally posting my private email to IPOWER onto his website? Surely, you are not going to just look past that very serious breach of ethical behavior, are you?
As for his initial article, I’ve read it and I find it slanderous/libelous. You disagree. Okay, fine. But his ISP read it, and apparently they agree with me, so they have sent him a request to remove it.
Now, it’s up to Ken Silva. As my above article states, there is another post against me on his website that I’ve said absolutely nothing about. So, clearly, I have my reasons. And I’ll keep them to myself pending the future.
He is the one making this into an event.
~ Richard Abanes
My humble opinion as one who is in God’s grace – let it all go and move on for Christ’s sake. Suffer persecution for his glory and return not evil for evil. And when men say all manner of evil against you falsely for His sake, REJOICE, for great is your reward in heaven.
These opportunities for self sacrificing grace should be used as such. From here on out there is nothing to be gained.
hey Rick,
Can you offer some thoughts on:
- where should a line is drawn? nowhere?
- what is the purpose for Christians of things like Terms of Service agreements? are they in place to be helpful to non-Christians only?
- when is the right time to: call a police officer, a lawyer, an ISP moderator, a store manager even, if we find ourselves being wronged?
Just some topics for discussion.
~ Richard Abanes
1. The spiritual line is always drawn at Golgotha.
2.Christians should abide by earthly vows and when wronged should attempt to reveal Christ in their response.
3. Each incident requires its own standard, however, I would always submit to a disinterested party who can help in honoring Christ without the baggage of being personally wronged. Especially when a brother in Christ is involved.
Rick
Richard,
I read the ‘offending’ article at Ken’s site and I wasn’t able to identify the libel.
The legal definition of libel is “any statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.”
So which statements in the offending post make false claims about you?
RA
With the perceived threat of legal action, I guarantee the ISP did not look at the article, they simply took your letter at face value and told Ken to take it down.
I agree with Freuh. This is not beneficial. It is counterproductive. Frankly, it is gay. So please, move on. You are making this article more famous by the moment!
And BTW the copyright thing? I have never known anybody to copyright their e-mails, it must be an author thing.
I copyright all my comments, so by posting them all of you will pay!
Pastorboy,
May I ask you if you believe it is wrong to post a person’s e-mail on the web without their permission?
Chris Rosebrough,
Don’t get involved in this — you of all people.
You have XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX [deleted at request of Chris Rosebrough]. And that is enough to be accountable for. I would suggest that you not start going around trying to defend equally ungodly behavior in others. I have no wish to fight with you because, to be honest, I feel sorry for you.
You went to the dark side when you had the opportunity to go towards truth. You blew it. So go back to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [deleted at request of Chris Rosebrough]. Puh-leeze, Chris. You’re living in a fantasy world.
Again, you had your chance. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [deleted at request of Chris Rosebrough]. Too bad. You had great potential.
As for your direct question, see my above answers to others.
~ Richard Abanes
___________________
___________________
Pastorboy,
You noted: “And BTW the copyright thing? I have never known anybody to copyright their e-mails, it must be an author thing.”
Indeed, MANY professionals use that copyright disclosure: authors, editors, literary agents, publishing houses, etc. etc. etc. But you can see, by ken’s example, how effective it is when dealing with someone willing to blatantly disregard the laws of the land contrary to Romans 13:1-7.
~ Richard Abanes
___________________
___________________
Oh, I was not aware of the copyright thingee with the publishers etc.
I want to have a copyright thingee!
Nancy,
I don’t know if it is wrong or not, but when I have done it I have asked permission. There is a certain person who goes to Rob Bell’s church who sent a flaming hate e-mail to me a while back and then begged me not to post it. I have kept it as he/she has threatened to go to law against me. I have not posted it out of courtesy.
I think there was justification in posting this e-mail, because it serves the Christian public as a warning that there are those who object to the free flow of ideas so that they will threaten ISP’s with lawsuits if certain material they do not agree with will be taken down. I am in BIG trouble with my blogs if this is true, for I am all about exposing truth and lies and people do not like it. What is surely next is the homosexuals, the fornicators, the thieves, the liars, the gluttons etc. all coming at me because they have been offended with the Word of God concerning their fate on my blog.
My question is this: RA is a great apologist, author, etc. Eckhart Tolle, The Mormons, The Muslims, JK Rowling, and many more have been offended by his books. How soon are they going to follow this precedent by RA and write his ISP and complain of offensive material?
I’m not a Christian anymore, and stumbled across your blog and this article randomly. I have to say that you seem very calm, and I do not doubt that you handled it just as you say (a very professional way, might I add). I wish you had posted quotes from the article, it would be useful to know what information is incorrect, and what isn’t.
Dear Mr. Abanes,
You have posted some pretty strong language yourself about Mr. Silva!
But am I missing something? (You’re posting all this online, so one assumes you’re wanting accountability with/ from other Christians.)
Three questions:
(I) Unsubstantiated charges?
Both your post and that of ipowerweb give no example of Silva’s “offensive material”. You charge him with: “…slanderous innuendo, misleading statements about my character/faith, and negative implications about me that are meant to deliberately harm my professional/personal reputation as a Christian author.”
Yet you give no examples of such from Silva’s article. Why not?
(II) Threat of legal action or not?
Writing to ipowerweb’s “legal dept.” re, “defamation-libel,” would give the impression that you are possibly pursuing legal avenues.
You write:
“…I contacted Mr. Silva’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) to inform them of my thoughts regarding the content of that particular article, and after doing so, asked them to please have Mr. Silva remove the article before I contacted my attorneys.”
“…nothing in my email to his ISP mentions to them that I was actually suing him! I merely told his ISP:
“1. Before turning this situation over to my attorneys, I wanted IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM to remove this one particular article from its servers; and
“2. I had no wish to name IPOWERWEB.NET / IPOWERWEB.COM in any legal suit.”
And, “If Mr. Silva is going to allege that I am “TO SUE APPRISING MINISTRIES,”…”
Yet you wrote: “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.”
And, above: “…asked them to please have Mr. Silva remove the article before I contacted my attorneys.”
Whether this come from a boiler plate or not would be irrelevant to ipowerweb. Talk of talking to attorneys would naturally be seen by them (or Silva) as a legal threat.
It certainly SOUNDS like a threat of legal action. It seems Silva is merely taking you at your word.
(III) Was ipowerweb given express, written permission to transmit your e-mail to Mr Silva? If not, will you likewise be criticizing online their “law-breaking” activities in forwarding to Silva your complaint?
“This email remains the sole property of its creator, Richard Abanes, c 2008, and is meant only for the recipient. It is not to be transmitted to any other person(s) for any reason without the expressed written consent of Richard Abanes…”
Of course, if either you or Mr. Silva have edited or otherwise altered your and/ or ipowerweb’s e-mails (thereby painting an inaccurate picture), then we here in cyber-court have no way of assessing who’s telling the truth and who’s lying.
One hopes that ipowerweb did not threaten Silva with site shut-down without first reading his post.
But perhaps as you cite the specific instances of slander, innuendo, etc. so concerning to you (the award-winning, bestselling author/journalist with twenty books published by major publishing houses) then maybe we all can better assess the situation.
Yours for the truth of Christ,
Hugh McCann
* BTW: “it’s” above s/b “its servers.”
Pastorboy,
You DO have a copyright thingee. Everyone does. It’s just that non-professionals tend to not use it because it’s unnecessary. But you have that right too. Just post what I post on your emails. And BTW, even if you DON’T post it, your emails are still protected immediately upon composition. The copyright notice just makes it VERY clear for those who might not know it, and also makes the copyright even that much stronger.
Now, on to your comments.
PB: I think there was justification in posting this e-mail, because it serves the Christian public as a warning that there are those who object to the free flow of ideas so that they will threaten ISP’s with lawsuits if certain material they do not agree with will be taken down.
RABANES: But pastorboy, you just can’t do it because it is indeed against the law. Believe me, I have some walloping razz-matazz hatemail from some very interesting people, but that does NOT give me the right to publish their text which is protected. It’s not my right to do so. And it’s against the law. Ken Silva seems to not care.
______________________
PB: What is surely next is the homosexuals, the fornicators, the thieves, the liars, the gluttons etc. all coming at me because they have been offended with the Word of God concerning their fate on my blog.
RABANES: Untrue. This is a very complicated issue that most people never even have to deal with because such issues do not affect them. That’s why, generally speaking, it is not an issue.
_____________________
PB: My question is this: RA is a great apologist, author, etc. Eckhart Tolle, The Mormons, The Muslims, JK Rowling, and many more have been offended by his books. How soon are they going to follow this precedent by RA and write his ISP and complain of offensive material?
RABANES: They won’t folow any precedent I am setting!!! You seem to be under a very serious misunderstanding. I am setting NOTHING. This is all old stuff, it’s just that no one thinks of it, or deals with it, because it is not a part of their lives.
What I have written about Rowling, Tolle, Mormons, etc. etc. etc. is all fine. And it takes a journalist who has studied up on such issues to know why. I’ve read countless legal articles and spent hours researching the subject. Why? because it’s part of my daily job.
For example, before ANY of my books are published by a publishing house, it is vetted by a board of attorneys!!! That’s another way I’ve learned what is, and is not acceptable. Ken Silva stuff needs to be vetted, seriously. No publisher would touch 90% of what’s on his website for legal reasons. It’s a miracle he hasn’t already been sued by someone, TBH.
~ Richard Abanes
I rank Sliva right along with the people he “tries” to police. He needs the scales to fall from his own eyes before he goes trying to correct other people.
Comment #17 is exactly why these things should come to an end. Either let it go or sue him. Do what you think God would have you to do.
Richard:
your double-standardness is truly breathtaking. I am utterly speechless that you can sink so low in violating Scripture (1 Cor. 6:1-8), not to mention that if Ken’s article constitute attack, you have attacked others including me many times over according to your ridiculous standards. I call upon you to repent of your un-Christlike behavior, and let me just say that your reputation will take a hit because of your juvenile and unChristian behavior in this matter.
Pastorboy,
Did you really call Richard Abanes’ behavior ‘gay’? (comment 12) What a fabulous pastor you must be.
Pastorboy,
You seem to understand somewhat based on your example that it’s not okay to post private information such as a e-mail without permission yet you also seem to believe it’s okay if you can justify it somehow. Am I understanding you correctly?
RICK FRUEH: Comment #17 is exactly why these things should come to an end. Either let it go or sue him. Do what you think God would have you to do.
RICH ABANES: Rick, regarding our friend, in #17, I don’t think that these types of issues are the problem, as evidenced by his additional post in a thread you haven’t seen. E. Michael Martin stated:
So, I think we have some other problems here.
Richard Abanes
I have to admit, some christian bloggers have gone too far in what they publish. Should they be silenced for what they say however? I don’t think so. This is what makes our country great, and a wonderful place to live.
PB: What is surely next is the homosexuals, the fornicators, the thieves, the liars, the gluttons etc. all coming at me because they have been offended with the Word of God concerning their fate on my blog.
RABANES: Untrue. This is a very complicated issue that most people never even have to deal with because such issues do not affect them. That’s why, generally speaking, it is not an issue.
PB, I read someplace online that someone has already placed a suit to zondervan publishing for their bibles offending them over their own homosexuality.
RA, I personally don’t think anyone should sue an individual unless an act is committed against them that potentially threatens the freedoms or can cause direct physical harm to others, such as when a school refuses to let someone carry or read their bible on board a school bus, or to pray in public, ect. To threaten such action because someone is wronged or offended… to me is rather petty. I find it an excuse to not take up the cross of Jesus and not embrace the suffering that he’s called all of us to. After all, should we not be pleased to suffer for the cause of Christ if we have not done any wrong? To be quite frank, I find it more of an issue to your reputation and pocketbook which you’ve made quite clear. You know, Ken may have been wrong for posting that email online and if done in direct defiance to the law…not from ignorance, then he should apologize and repent. RA, I honestly wouldn’t want comments like that to be spoken about me either so I can sympathize with you in that regard. The greater question is if the questions posed in his articles can be sincerely answered in truth without flaming attacks or sidestepping. Sometimes this in itself can present truth where its hidden otherwise. Unfortunately this very discussion on both ends might harm the reputation of each of you.
RA, I have never experienced Chris Rosebrough saying anything out of touch with reality, on his website or within the context on an audio broadcast. It also looks as though you chose to avoid the questions that Chris posed. Anyone who does the research on the seeker-sensitive movement can see how its rife with errors and how it only does incalculable damage to the Body of Christ. I myself have researched thoroughly these movements coming into the church over the past 5 years, seeing whether these things are true.
See Matthew 5:39-41 and other related scriptures
If Ken violated federal law it seems to me Federal agencies are the ones that should both decide if that is true and act on it. Not a private party or an ISP. The ISP is a hosting company not law enforcement, judge or jury. I know when I hosted an ISP our customer content stayed up unless contacted by law enforcement.
So if he really has committed a federal crime why not notify the authorities?
Richard,
I was wondering if I should send a letter to the company hosting your blog for the libelous word you just wrote about me?
Here is what you said about me:
Now this is an odd bit of irony. You just mis-represented me and lied by claiming that I teach that Warren teaches Salvation by works. Yet, that is NOT what I’ve said about Warren and that is not what I’ve stated about Warren’s doctrinal position, especially now that I’ve met with him and spent time at the Purpose Driven conference. What you said was a lie and was false and was libelous.
So, should I follow your example in resolving this problem and seeking recourse for this libel? Afterall, I now host an internationally listened to apologetics program on the number one Christian talk radio station on the Live 365 Radio Network. My reputation is very important.
Are we really surprised by the fruit of Saddleback and all things Purpose Driven? Ummmm…no.
Mr. Abanes needs drama to drum up booksales and to stoke his self love. If he is ignored, he will go away. The only we can do is pray for Mr. Abanes. he follows a false gospel, and a gOd that looks like himself. He is blinded and only the Lord can lift the blinders.
From your email to Ken’s webhost:
“By way of introduction, I am an award-winning, bestselling author/journalist with twenty books published by major publishing houses. My public reputation, therefore is of paramount importance to my livelihood and career.”
Gag me!
Ken and all involved should have realized that you are entitled.
Too bad Jesus didn’t respond like this while he was being spat upon.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
I find it interesting and extremely disturbing that there seems to be a trend within Christian circles to attack those who make any attempt to stand up for themselves and the work that they do. This trend seems to hold true even if the attempts are done fairly and with just cause. Those who have been wronged in some way are held to a very strict letter of the law. To add to this problem those who did the wrongdoing are ignored or even praised. Advice is given about just letting God deal with them yet the victim is judged for their response and much is said to them. Grace is called upon for the wrongdoer yet the person wronged is given very little if any grace. If this is a real trend then it is a sad day for Christians.
Richard, this is an exact question and doesn’t require a verbose response:
Do you consider Ken Silva to be a Christian?
I am so special and you are not. Only special people like me deal with this. I am so special that the bible does not even talk about my “special” situation…
____________________________________
PB: What is surely next is the homosexuals, the fornicators, the thieves, the liars, the gluttons etc. all coming at me because they have been offended with the Word of God concerning their fate on my blog.
RABANES: Untrue. This is a very complicated issue that most people never even have to deal with because such issues do not affect them. That’s why, generally speaking, it is not an issue.
_____________________________
talk about deceived…
Mr. Abanes,
Are these the reasons for your charge that Silva lied? What were your intentions for your attorneys?
I am not a lawyer, so maybe you can explain the intricacy of this copyright law to me. Was your email sent to Mr. Silva or was it sent to IPOWER? If it was sent to IPOWER, and IPOWER sent the content of the email to another party, does the same copyright laws apply to the third party? Can you give some evidence that Mr. Silva has a clear knowledge of these copyright laws and therefore deliberately and willfully violate the law?
Should Mr. Silva comply with a false accusation against him? Would you remove all your books from bookstores if a Mormon accused you of being liable? There would be any TOS against you but if you refuse to remove your books should we consider you as violating American liable laws?
Why do you want to prove Silva right or sink to his level? Can you give some evidence that Silva has consistently that you are not someone with whom he wishes to dialogue? I seem to recall in the article that you pointed to in the OP “A PASTOR’S ASSESSMENT OF RICHARD ABANES”, Mr. Silva said, as I read, and prayed about, Mr. Abanes’ rather shallow rebuttal, I began to feel that God would wish me to dialogue with him again. Can you support your accusations?
Do you think that everything you say on a radio program or everything you write on your website needs to be vetted by an attorney? Are we to assume everything you say and post on this website might be slanderous and libelous?
teleo: Do you think that everything you say on a radio program or everything you write on your website needs to be vetted by an attorney? Are we to assume everything you say and post on this website might be slanderous and libelous?
ABANES: My point was that people have a responsibility when making public pronouncements on their websites, on the radio, in books, etc. etc. etc. One of the agreed problems with the Internet is its vastness that is in many ways beyond normal social/legal rules of civil discourse.
The Internet is like one, big, sprawling TABLOID wherein everyone with something to say can just type away, push a button, and there it is for all the world to see, regardless of how factual, hateful, or damaging it might be.
My point was that in any other professional situation, written statements are vetted to make sure they meet civil, factual, and legal standards. It is a safety measure, not only for authors, but also for those about whom they write. This safety measure is absent, for the most part, on the Internet — including at Ken Silva’s website.
THAT was the point.
Richard Abanes
Hmm. With all due respect, etc., there seems to be some muddled thinking going on here.
1) If my neighbor says to me, “You’d better keep your dog off my yard or I may get my gun out,” the “Reasonable Person Standard” used by most courts would typically agree that this is meant as a threat to shoot the dog, even though the person didn’t specifically say what he was going to do with the gun. I mean, he could’ve meant that he was going to clean it, or maybe kill himself, right?
Likewise, when you say “Before turning this situation over to my attorneys” and “I have no wish to name X in a legal suit”, I think that a Reasonable Person would regard this as a threat of some further legal action if the desired result is not obtained upon complaint. After all, you are the one who used the words “legal suit” which would tend to imply that you did not intend to call your lawyers for a round of golf if his ISP didn’t remove the post. It seems disingenuous at best to try to plead that because you haven’t filed a lawsuit, that these words are not meant to be read as a threat of a possible future action.
2) Defamation is a complex issue, and laws vary by jurisdiction. But it is non-controversial that if a person makes specific false statements (esp. that result in civil damages) it is defamation. For example, if I said “Rev. X has 5 children out-of-wedlock and killed his third wife with a bat,” and these statements were actually false, and led to Rev. X losing his job, or other adverse consequences, I would certainly be guilty and liable to whatever financial damages could be proven.
But you haven’t cited any statements like that. If I read your complaint correctly, what seems to be the issue here is that Silva has doctrinal disagreements with you, and publishes what he believes to be the biblical implications of those disagreements regarding your person, which, if these implications were widely accepted by the Christian public, would result in personal and financial damages to your ministry, etc.
But hold on a sec. In the heading of your post, you refer to Mr. Silva either directly or by implication as “telling lies, a sin[ner], ungodly, stubborn spirit, false accuser, rant[er] and rave[r], liblous, slander[er], and a man willing to deliberately break the laws of our free land.”
Now, as I understand it, Mr. Silva is a full-time pastor who derives his income from a church position. But, it seems to me that a Reasonable Person might easily conclude that your statements in this very post are “negative implications about [him] that are meant to deliberately harm [his] professional/personal reputation as a Christian [pastor].” Certainly if his church members were to read your online comments and believe them, it is likely that he would be dismissed from his position as lacking the necessary moral qualifications, resulting in financial damages to his person. So, then, you would appear to have also done to Mr. Silva exactly what you claim he has done to you.
You have a large library of apologetics books you have authored which are presumably critical of their various targets, and which, if believed by the general public, would result in a loss of membership and finances for those organizations. Should you be held liable for defamation for testing their doctrines against the Scriptures, and stating what you believe to be the biblical conclusions? (BTW, this is exactly how Scientology rolls…)
3) You seem certain that Mr. Silva’s ISP has conducted a full investigation and found his post to be defamatory, which you assert as a major point in your favor above. Do you have actual evidence of this? Anyone who has been around on the internet for more than a minute knows that the vast majority of ISPs conduct no investigation of any kind in these situations. They just act on the basis of the complaint, using a “better safe than sorry” policy. This is so common that there are now “1st amendment” hosts that offer a guarantee not to act without an actual court order.
4) You seem to be making a huge thing out of the email quote. I have a couple of questions on this. First, it seems possible that Silva’s ISP placed the text of your email into the text of their email to him, in order to justify their action. This would seem likely, esp. since you were requesting the removal of a specific post. If so, were they violating your copyright when they forwarded your complaint? Do you know for sure that they copied your copyright restriction as well as the text of your email when it was sent to Silva?
But more importantly, why is it so important to you that it have been kept confidential that you requested the removal of a certain post? It appears to me that if your stated wishes were followed, the ISP would have notified Silva about an anonymous complaint regarding a certain post and required him to remove it, and neither he nor anyone else in the world would ever have known who made the complaint or why? I’m not sure I understand the big secret?
And even if he did “violate federal copyright laws” etc., so has every person in the United States, excepting infants. Ever make a mix-tape from several vinyl albums (dating myself)? Buzz. You broke the law. But let’s say it was wrong, and against the law (not any specific law of God, mind you, but the generic one you cite from Rom 13, and which, considering the Federal Code is thousands of pages long, we’re all guilty world without end, amen). You seem to be magnifying this quoting of your email as if Silva was some kind of daring high-handed sinner, a veritable Captain Morgan of copyright violation. Doesn’t this strike you as maybe a tad overblown?
Here’s a thought: why not just write a response to whatever he said that you disagree with, and let the readers decide? (That’s what Paul did, repeatedly). Just an idea.
Hypocrisy?
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/11/new_breed_new_e_1.html
Yes.
Richard, I’ll chime in on your request to Rick for some thoughts, pardon me Rick I hope you don’t take offense to the offering.
RA - where should a line is drawn? nowhere?
Where did Christ tell us to draw the line when we are wronged, at 7 wrongings? No I believe it was actually said by the Lord Jesus Christ that we are to forgive 7 times 70, right? And in case that wasn’t clear enough in Col. 3:12-13 Paul states: So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you.
RA – what is the purpose for Christians of things like Terms of Service agreements? are they in place to be helpful to non-Christians only?
What is disturbing to me Richard is that you would expect worldly forces to hide something you have written against another, be he a Brother or lost – there will come a day when all will be revealed and what then with all the hiding you are encouraging by your reliance on TOS’s, which most commenter’s, myself included, have never taken the time to read? I doubt Ken intended on doing anything more than bringing to light that which otherwise would be hidden. Being that you are from the CRI camp of Hank Hanegraaff, a “brother” familiar with the courts of men, it is little surprise to me personally that you would take such a stance and approach in this matter rather than ignoring the matter altogether and trusting God to handle it rightly. Personally I would have done the latter and bless those who persecute me. What have I of my own (reputation, treasure, etc…) to defend against loss that God in His Sovereignty could not handle better? Besides you have seemingly missed it completely that those who are opposed to PD/RW/yourself, etc… are primarily defending the aberrant or heretical teachings that are leading countless people astray into various forms of self-centered ideologies.
RA – when is the right time to: call a police officer, a lawyer, an ISP moderator, a store manager even, if we find ourselves being wronged?
When you are in danger of bodily harm maybe you might want to call the police, if a doctor or a prescribed medical treatment has killed a spouse, child or loved one possibly one might want to seek Christian legal advice to shine light onto the problem, as to your situation and your desire to self justify your actions, I cannot say it would ever be a right time to call. I publish many comments in the blogosphere, never would I consider myself wronged were any of them used by another against me as I have no way of preventing such a thing and no interest in losing a moment of sleep over such a thing.
As to your comment to Chris Rosebrough, what a revealing comment that is Richard, since when in your life did PD and fellowship with Rick Warren become the measuring stick by which all other Christians would be judged? by which biblical accuracy would be judged? by which discernment and proper fellowship would be judged? CR has simply shown himself a defender of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nothing less. Praise be to God.
Humbly submitted,
Bill Burke
teleo: Are these the reasons for your charge that Silva lied? What were your intentions for your attorneys?
ABANES: 1. Yes. 2. Those intentions are mine, and for the ears of my attorneys.
___________________________
teleo: I am not a lawyer, so maybe you can explain the intricacy of this copyright law to me.
ABANES: No. I can’t. I’m not going to give legal lessons onine in a blog. Hire a copyright attorney and ask him to explain it. Or do some research.
____________________________
teleo: Was your email sent to Mr. Silva or was it sent to IPOWER? If it was sent to IPOWER, and IPOWER sent the content of the email to another party, does the same copyright laws apply to the third party?
ABANES: Sent to IPOWER. IPOWER to notify Silva, had to forward it to Silva. But he had no right or permission to then publish it.
____________________________
teleo: Can you give some evidence that Mr. Silva has a clear knowledge of these copyright laws and therefore deliberately and willfully violate the law?
ABANES: This was on the bottom of the email:
Fairly clear, I would think. No? If even you, after reading this, simply scratched your head and thought, “I don’t get it,” would the language not give you pause about publishing it online? mean, really, c’mon. Where’s a little common sense.
_____________________________
teleo: Should Mr. Silva comply with a false accusation against him?
ABANES: NO, he should comply with what his ISP requests of him, or suffer the consequences. It’s not my job to police his ISP. I registered a complaint. There decision is their decision.
I fail to see the horrible atrocity here, TBH. It’s utterly baffling to me. This is no more egregious than if I were in a grocery store and the fruit man was rude to me or totally unhelpful — but he had on a Jesus pin!! I’d go to his manager and say, “This guy is not abiding by your standards of employment for courtesy, helpful service.” The manager’s decision about how to handle it is the managers decision.
Again, I say, Silva is whining/crying and making this into FAR more than it really is. Nothing should have been public about it at all. It was a simple request to an ISP that resulted on the ISP saying, “Yeah, we agree, Mr. Abanes. Hey, Mr. Silva, take down that ONE article and enjoy your website.” BUt noooooooo, Silva goes ballistic and starts screaming on the Internet. Odd.
_____________________________
teleo: Would you remove all your books from bookstores if a Mormon accused you of being liable?
ABANES: ROFL. They wouldn’t. All books are vetted. See?
_____________________________
teleo: There would be any TOS against you but if you refuse to remove your books should we consider you as violating American liable laws?
ABANES: Uhm, my statement about KS “violating American” laws was in reference to his deliberate posting a a private email in violation of: a) privacy laws; and b) copyright laws. His willingness to libel/slander me, I will chalk up to other issues, which if push came to shove, would indeed also constitute infringement of various laws designed to protect people. Hey, if Silva’s ISP disagrees, let them say so.
_____________________________
teleo: Can you support your accusations?
ABANES: You need to keep up with blogs. I can’t go through hundreds of blogging comments extending back God knows how long.
~ Richard Abanes
Thank you for the clarification. My question was directed at your answer to PB #16. You said the people you write about will not follow your precedence because what your materials have been vetted and Silva need to do the same. My point was Silva’s website should be held to the same standard you apply to yourself when posting on your website and when you speak. I agree with you about the internet, but I am sure you endeavor to be diligent about the accuracy of postings on this website and when you speak. There is no reason hold Silva to a different standard than to yourself. There is also no reason to assume 90% of his website needs to be vetted just because you might disagree with his writings.
Do you have something specific on Silva’s website that you would like to dispute?
LISA: I am so special and you are not. Only special people like me deal with this. I am so special that the bible does not even talk about my “special” situation…
ABANES: Kind of nasty, mean-spirited, and snippy, don’t you think? I’m not sure what yo’re actually referring to, althoug I assume that it has to do with em talking about copyright law, libel, slander, and such. I’m not sure how/why you have taken this tone, but my business involves these issues. A plumber knows about copper pipes vs. other pipes. A doctor understands the nuances between drugs. A singing coach knows about the inner workings of the vocal chords. A mechanic has studied the variosu actiosn of engine parts. As an author, I have looked into these issues in order to write my books and have them past the vetting of my publishers. Please do tell me how my explanation of this basic fact is somehow equal to me implying “I am so special”? That is just off-the-wall. I have no idea where you’re getting that from.
_______________________
LISA: (quoting RABANES: Untrue. This is a very complicated issue that most people never even have to deal with because such issues do not affect them. That’s why, generally speaking, it is not an issue). . . . . . talk about deceived…
ABANES: I think you GRAVELY misunderstood me. I was NOT talking about the issues of fornication, homosexuality, thieves, liars, and gluttons — which you seem to think I was referring to. NO, NO, NO. I was referring to WHY PB would have no problems sharing his opinion about these sinful behaviors — such opinions are protected.
That you would for moment think that I’d have ANY reservations about calling these issues sinful speaks volumes about how you must view me. And THAT is very sad indeed.
~ RICHARD ABANES
LANE: Do you consider Ken Silva to be a Christian?
RICHARD ABANES: Yes, I think so. I, of course, cannot see into his heart. But yes, I think so. I also believe, however, that he has some serious problems — and I am sure he”d say the same of me (except, I am NOT sure if he would consider me a Christian).
Richard Abanes
CHRIS P: From your email to Ken’s webhost: “By way of introduction, I am an award-winning, bestselling author/journalist with twenty books published by major publishing houses. My public reputation, therefore is of paramount importance to my livelihood and career.” Gag me! Ken and all involved should have realized that you are entitled. Too bad Jesus didn’t respond like this while he was being spat upon. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
RABANES: Your love and compassion overwhelm me. As for THAT introduction, when dealling with large businesses, corporations, and the like, it helps for people to know who you are — so that they know a person is not just some off-the-wall, lunatic who is ranting and raving about libel. Sorry if you are offended by truth.
At least I — UNLIKE THE GRAND MR. SILVA — do not seek to pad my resume and lie about my credentials. I call your attention, for example, to the fact that Mr. Silva claims to have been MENTORED by Dr. Walter Martin. That, dear Chris, is a lie. Now, go chastise Silva for making himself out to be something he is not.
~ Richard Abanes
an award-winning, bestselling author/journalist with twenty books published by major publishing houses – LOL – just kidding, couldn’t resist.
Chris,
Do whatever you want to do — that’s what you do anyway, regardless of truth. And others are beginning to finally see that now as well.
~ Richard Abanes
“This email remains the sole property of its creator, Richard Abanes, c 2008, and is meant only for the recipient. It is not to be transmitted to any other person(s) for any reason without the expressed written consent of Richard Abanes.
So you’re not in the least bit upset with IPOWERWEB for sharing your e-mail to them with Ken Silva?
Fair enough. Let me ask you this then. When one party in the midst of a dispute declares that he will turn the matter over to his attorneys. What should you expect to follow? Would you expect his attorneys to call an ecclesiastical council to settle the issues theologically? Or would you expect his attorneys to follow a secular civil proceeding to resolve the issues in a secular jurisprudence? I wonder how your readers would answer this question also.
Again, I am not verse with the legal minutia of copyright laws but it seems to me that violation party here is IPOWER who disclosed a private email from you to a third party. By exposing that email it becomes public domain and Silva is not violating any law by posting it. In the very least I personally don’t see it as a deliberate action on Silva’s part to violate any law.
Yes, very clear, if your email was sent to Silva directly. It was not. Was Silva the first one to make your email public? No, it was not. If you can’t acknowledge this fact, I don’t get it either.
I agree with you, there is no atrocity here. I was merely trying to understand how Silva’s refusal to remove the article due to what he believes to be false accusations, amounted to a “troubling” response. Silva might need to suffer the consequences from IPOWER but that is also in disagreement between him and his hosting company. As a third party I have not seen IPOWER provide any specifics from the offending article as defamatory/libelous, other than taking your word as such.
I read the article, maybe you can explain to me and others here what are the specific points in the article that rises to the level of being defamatory/libelous?
For the record, I think you are a Christian. As you said, I cannot see into your heart, but yes, I think you are. I also thank you for your books on the Mormons.
Chris R: You just mis-represented me and lied by claiming that I teach that Warren teaches Salvation by works.
ABANES: Really? You told me on the phone that Rick Warren’s sermons, when taken out to their logical conclusions, teach salvation by following the LAW — i.e., salvation by works. We went round and round about this.
You say as much on your blog, letting others say the same thing and worse — without correcting them. Here’s one example from your blog: “I didn’t have to look far to find sound bites of RW salvation by works, found on this site” – ZEK. Did you correct this guy? I missed it.
And you mock Warren and Saddleback, even using profanity, until you got too much heat for using profanity, and changed what you originally stated:
You think that kind of language, coupled with your utterly absurd Purpose Driven heavenly Rewards calculator, is funny? You think that is what apologetics/discernment is? Interesting. Walter Martin would hang his head in shame and shake it to and fro if he read anything like that. Ask Gretchen Passantino-Cobern. You remember her, right? or have you relegated her to the heresy heap, too?
As for your teaching on Warren and works, you repeatedly say it in more than one way. You claim, “I have not made the claim that Warren teaches salvation by work,” but you allow others to make that charge, and in your subtle way, talk out of both sides of your mouth, so as to not technically say it, but give the impression of it:
You repeatedly quote verses like Gal. 3:1, Gal. 3:7, Gal. 3:10 in thread’s about Warren and works and the law, giving the impression to blog readers that this is all about Warren. And you consistently rip a wrod or a phrase from Warren’s message to use a a smoking gun, all the while ignoring a plethora of other statements that bring into focus the isolated statements you make against Warren in hopes of proving that holds beliefs, which in reality, he does not hold.
But this thread is not about Warren, and I won’t allow it to be turned into being about Warren. The articles are up on my website that clearly establish his view on salvation and various other issues. You will not hear it. You will not accept it. You had your chance, and you chose to go another way. Now you have your fans. Enjoy them. I wish you well.
~ Richard Abanes
why was my entry deleted, Mr Abanes?
Hugh
pardon me, ignored.
# 18
thanks,
Hugh
WAZ: So if he really has committed a federal crime why not notify the authorities?
ABANES: Because that is absurd. It was a POINT I am making about Silva. My goodness, people, gracious. What do you think is going on here??? I am honestly aghast at this response. Think about it. Right, like I am really going to call out the FBI.
It’s amazing to me that i write a simple request to an ISP to ask one of their clients to abide by their TOS and all hell breaks loose on the Internet because one “Pastor” isn’t mature enough to just say, “Okay.”
Instead, he alerts his fan base and tries to make it into an episode worthy of EXTRA! Puh-leeze.
~ Richard Abanes
Wow. Your ego is astounding. I’m currently in the process of grabbing copies of everything on Silva’s website and will host it on off shore servers and ensure they have nice SEO. Good day.
You keep making claims that he violated federal law. That’s a very very serious claim. It’s just words you’re using to puff up your claims. Overinflated ego, overinflated claims. I see a trend…
Wayne: I have to admit, some christian bloggers have gone too far in what they publish. Should they be silenced for what they say however? I don’t think so. This is what makes our country great, and a wonderful place to live.
ABANES: Wait, what about the laws that are against such things and are designed to protect people — isn’t that part of what makes this country great instead of some Communist country or some country run by the Taliban? I am not following your logic here. It’s as if you think some laws are awesome and are for Christians, while others are just meddlingand NOT for Christians.
_______________________
Wayne: Anyone who does the research on the seeker-sensitive movement can see how its rife with errors and how it only does incalculable damage to the Body of Christ.
ABANES: Really? How about all the God-fearing, Bible-following, Christ-honoring, Jesus-loving Christians who disagree with you? Are you actually telling me that ALL of them are deceived? Who are you including in “Anyone who does the research”? Are you saying that NO ONE who supports Warren has done research on him, or if they have, they are totally wanked out, spiritually? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. Greg Laurie? Hank Hanegraaff? Me? Ron Rhodes? Jim Bjornstad? Pastors all over the world whose ministries clearly point people to Jesus? All of them? Wow. Amazing.
~ Richard Abanes
ABANES: Wait, what about the laws that are against such things and are designed to protect people
Waz: How about letting the enforcement agencies and courts that are tasks with determining when those laws are broken do so? If a law was truly broken and ISP is NOT the appropriate party to notify, law enforcement is.
Richard, since you self-admittedly believe that Ken Silva is a Christian, can you provide a Scripture reference that supersedes this Scripture?:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud–even your own brothers!
(1Co 6:1-8)
If not, what authority do you believe supersedes Scripture? I am interested to know what it is if the latter is true.
DANIEL CHEW: your double-standardness is truly breathtaking.
ABANES: MY doouble standard???? Here’s a double-standard: one of Ken’s own close associates—Ingrid Schlueter, Slice of Laodicea—when she was faced with a website that she felt had slandered/libeled her, ultimately ended up going for her attorney, who sent a threatening letter to the party who she felt had slandered her. As for me, I haven’t even contacted an attorney! I have merely contacted Silva’s ISP with my request for them to please make sure that one of their subscribers remains true to their Terms of Service. And as already noted, they examined the material and agreed with my assessment. Consequently, they contacted Silva and respectfully asked him to remove the article in question. He responded in a fashion not at all becoming of a pastor.
___________________
DANIEL CHEW: I am utterly speechless that you can sink so low in violating Scripture (1 Cor. 6:1-8),
ABANES; 1. Apparently not so speechless. 2. Can you provide me with any documentation that indicates I have filed a lawsuit against Ken Silva. Thanks for the documents in advance. Read the above article again. (sorry, my presumption, did you read it once yet?). Last I checked, I just sent a little old email to ken’s ISP telling them of my concerns. They agreed. And asked him to remove one little article — horror of horrors.
____________________
DANIEL CHEW: …. not to mention that if Ken’s article constitute attack, you have attacked others including me many times over according to your ridiculous standards.
ABANES: Actually, I RESPONDED to an attack you launched first. That’s all. Your attack piece was so off in left field that it caused one of your readers to post this terrific gem:
Defending Eckhart Tolle??? Yeah, right. My book is the first/only response against Eckhart Tolle, but this poor guy got such a mis-impression of me from you writings he thought I’d be FOR Eckhart Tolle. Good reporting there, Daniel.
_____________________
DANIEL CHEW: I call upon you to repent of your un-Christlike behavior, and let me just say that your reputation will take a hit because of your juvenile and unChristian behavior in this matter.
ABANES: Yes, I know, you like to do that sort of power stuff — shouting for judgment, making grandiose pronouncements, calling for repentance, etc. etc. etc. How about starting with just getting your facts straight.
peace, my young friend,
R. Abanes
Richard,
I along with Chris R. and Pastorby want to see what in Ken’s article was slanderous or would qualify as libel?
No red herrings please.
Lane Chaplin: If not, what authority do you believe supersedes Scripture? I am interested to know what it is if the latter is true.
ABANES: I saw this coming from a mile away. No, no authority supercedes scripture. I didn’t go to the law, did I? Stop making it seem that i have done something I haven’t done. Mmkay. You you have some document that says I have gone to the law, please provide it. I went to an ISP, which has a TOS agreement that Ken put his name to.
I lodged a complaint the same as I’d complain to a manager at a store for lousy service, or a rude salesperson, or a defective product sold to me under false pretenses. PLEASE, don’t even try to make this into a 1Cor. 6:1-8 issue. That is such a cop out.
If you REALLY want to go into that kind of situation, then I suggest you ask KEN Silva why he was not so incensed over Ingrid Schlueter’s actions, which actually INVOLVED an attorney sending a threatening letter to a fellow Christian. (see above reference in main blog article). Have him answer that one? And then you can tell me why you’re not incensed over Ingrid’s actions, too.
~ Richard Abanes
WAZ: Waz: How about letting the enforcement agencies and courts that are tasks with determining when those laws are broken do so? If a law was truly broken and ISP is NOT the appropriate party to notify, law enforcement is.
ABANES: NO. The ISP is. There is no need to go running off to the police and the courts — HELLO — when the issue could have handled easily, painlessly, calmly, hassle-free. As I have said now MANY times, Ken Silva is the one making this into a tumultuous storm of controversy — not me.
~ Richard Abanes
WAZ: You keep making claims that he violated federal law. That’s a very very serious claim. It’s just words you’re using to puff up your claims. Overinflated ego, overinflated claims. I see a trend…
ABANES: Really? Go look p some copyright law on protected, unpublished emails. Sorry, I cant give you a lesson on federal copyright laws. Believe me, or not. It doesn’t change what the laws are.
~ Richard Abanes
MrEgo: Wow. Your ego is astounding. I’m currently in the process of grabbing copies of everything on Silva’s website and will host it on off shore servers and ensure they have nice SEO. Good day.
ABANES: AWESOME!!! I hear the mafia and other organized crime groups use off-shore accounts, too. They’re very convenient when someone doesn’t want to abide by the laws of the land. Good idea. You’re in excellent company with that tactic.
Richard Abanes
Richard, you said in the letter to IPOWER:
So by declaring your plans to go to the law to IPOWER then saying here that you haven’t gone to the law, were you merely threatening to go past 1Cor. 6:1-8 but had no intention of actually doing it? If so, why imply your intentions to IPOWER in one way when you don’t hold to actually carrying your intentions out? I’m just trying to assess the situation, and, of course, there are two sides to every story so I’m sure much of us would appreciate you explicitly stating yours so there’s no ambiguity.
The logic goes like this: A Christian holds to the Bible and what it teaches. The Bible says 1Cor 6:1-8. You’ve already stated that you believe that Ken is a Christian so the only logical possibilities left are:
Now I know enough regarding you to know that 2) isn’t true, so, logically, how would this situation be assessed given the facts that we have now?
teleo; Let me ask you this then. When one party in the midst of a dispute declares that he will turn the matter over to his attorneys. What should you expect to follow?
ABANES: Just exactly what was said, and no more.
_____________________________
teleo: Would you expect his attorneys to call an ecclesiastical council to settle the issues theologically? Or would you expect his attorneys to follow a secular civil proceeding to resolve the issues in a secular jurisprudence? I wonder how your readers would answer this question also.
ABANES: I do not think for others. What I DO know, however, is that Silva com-puh-letely over-reacted and gave an outlandishly over-the-top response to a very simple request. It’s like I had attempted to murder his puppy dog. The reaction even surprised me. TBH, I found it rather childish.
______________________________
teleo: Again, I am not verse with the legal minutia of copyright laws but it seems to me that violation party here is IPOWER who disclosed a private email from you to a third party.
ABANES: Negative. They needed to notify ken with my complaint. I knew that.
______________________________
teleo: By exposing that email it becomes public domain and Silva is not violating any law by posting it.
ABANES: Wrong. KEN SILVA published it, contrary to privacy laws/copyright laws. The ISP sending it to him does nOT make it “public Domain.” Furthermore, even now, just because it has indeed been put out into the public, that DOES NOT suddenly make it “Public Domain” — that is not what “Public Domain” means.
______________________________
teleo: Yes, very clear, if your email was sent to Silva directly. It was not. Was Silva the first one to make your email public? No, it was not.
Yes, he was. The ISP sending to him my complaint is NOT making it public.
~ Richard Abanes
Just Wondering: So you’re not in the least bit upset with IPOWERWEB for sharing your e-mail to them with Ken Silva?
ABANES: I understood they would notify him of the complaint.
teleo: Do you have something specific on Silva’s website that you would like to dispute?
ABANES: Yes. The article. That’s enough for me to say at this point, since I’ve been trying to answer all these posts, and I am losing my patience and time.
RA
ABANES: NO. The ISP is. There is no need to go running off to the police and the courts — HELLO — when the issue could have handled easily, painlessly, calmly, hassle-free. As I have said now MANY times, Ken Silva is the one making this into a tumultuous storm of controversy — not me.
WAZ: So it’s your stance that an ISP should be both police and judge?
ABANES: Really? Go look p some copyright law on protected, unpublished emails. Sorry, I cant give you a lesson on federal copyright laws. Believe me, or not. It doesn’t change what the laws are.
WAZ: Again, you level serious charges but fail to take the Christian route Lane pointed out or the proper legal route. Instead you demand an ISP interpret and enforce the law.
LANE: So by declaring your plans to go to the law to IPOWER then saying here that you haven’t gone to the law, were you merely threatening to go past 1Cor. 6:1-8 but had no intention of actually doing it? If so, why imply your intentions to IPOWER in one way when you don’t hold to actually carrying your intentions out? I’m just trying to assess the situation, and, of course, there are two sides to every story
ABANES: Lane, sigh, I have tried to express this patiently as best I can, but as you can see, I am already up to how many responses??? I really am starting to run out of both steam, desire, and willingness to keep justifying my actions — when it seems that NO ONE cares at all about Ken’s part in this, his own littany of less than positive actions, his double standard (see above main blog information about Ingrid Schlueter).
I think all of this just proves to me that no one wants to be held accountable to anyone else. Everyone wants to just say and do whatever they want to say and do — and someone like me can’t even write a letter to an ISP, telling them that I personally feel as if a certain article should be removed per their TOS agreement. The wrath of the true defenders of God is unleashed. Interesting. This was a fascniating learning experience. We learn so much every day.
So at this point, I am inclined to simply say, “Believe what you will.” I think if you read the original blog post, as well as my MANY answers, enough information is there to take a position in your mind. Whatever it is — blessings.
R. Abanes
ABANES: (see above main blog information about Ingrid Schlueter).
WAZ: By what stretch of the imagination is Silva responsible for the actions of an associate? Does Silva support Ingrid’s actions? Are you privy to any discussions they may have had about the issue?
DT: I along with Chris R. and Pastorby want to see what in Ken’s article was slanderous or would qualify as libel?
No red herrings please.
RABANES: I don’t really need to justify anything in detail. Those who need to know how I see the article, and why I see it that way, know the specifics. So, as I have just stated: “…at this point, I am inclined to simply say, “Believe what you will.” I think if you read the original blog post, as well as my MANY answers, enough information is there to take a position in your mind. Whatever it is — blessings.
Look up and see how hard I have trued to answer innumerable posts. I gave it my best effort. If it’s not good enough. That’s fine with me. I have found that more often than not, people are going to believe what they want to believe anyway.
RA
WAZ: By what stretch of the imagination is Silva responsible for the actions of an associate? Does Silva support Ingrid’s actions? Are you privy to any discussions they may have had about the issu
ABANES: I never said he was “responsible” for them, now did I?
RA
ABANES: I never said he was “responsible” for them, now did I?
WAZ: No you just conveniently implied it. Why bring her up at all?
WAZ: So it’s your stance that an ISP should be both police and judge?
ABANES: No more so than a store manager to whom you make a complaint.
_________________
WAZ: Instead you demand an ISP interpret and enforce the law.
ABANES: Okay, next time a Christian waitress gives completely lousy service in a diner, spills coffee on you, mixes up your orders, and is rude — you go follow Lane’s advise, instead of calling her manager over to complain. Mmkay?
WAZ: No you just conveniently implied it. Why bring her up at all?
RABANES: I am not going to repeat myself. Read it all again.
RA
HUGH: why was my entry deleted, Mr Abanes?
ABANES: LOL. I don’t think so. It’s somewhere in this mess, I am assuming. I’ll look again.
RAbanes
PLEASE BE ADVISED — THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED/LOCKED. I will sift through the thread to see if anyone’s posts remain (those not answered before this closing). I think that there are just a few more. I will answer those remaining. But I have spent enough time on this overblown issue (thank you, Ken).
PLEASE BE ADVISED — THIS THREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED/LOCKED. I will sift through the thread to see if anyone’s posts remain (those not answered before this closing). I think that there are just a few more. I will answer those remaining. But I have spent enough time on this overblown issue (thank you, Ken).
[...] Those who might find this of interest can read the article from Richard Abanes here. [...]
[...] Discernment Ministry (ODM) Slice of Laodicea. Schlueter, of course, is the woman I mention in Ken Silva – More Lies, More Sensationalism, More Sin, which chronicles how this whole situation erupted. She is the same person who, when faced with her [...]
BILL: Where did Christ tell us to draw the line when we are wronged, at 7 wrongings? No I believe it was actually said by the Lord Jesus Christ that we are to forgive 7 times 70, right? And in case that wasn’t clear enough in Col. 3:12-13
ABANES: I’m sorry, I’m a bit confused here. Where have I EVER said I have not forgiven Ken??? Forgiveness does NOT equal allowing a person’s actions to go unchecked, nor does it mean allowing a person to keep doing what they are doing without being held accountable. Plenty of people who have committed crimes or wronged others have been forgiven by those whom they have wronged — but that DOESN’T mean all is well and they are allowed to just go off on their merry way without having to answer for their actions. If that were the test of forgiveness, the streets would be filled with murderers, thieves, con men, and all manner of criminals who have wronged Christians and been forgiven. (Now, lest I be accused of equating Ken Silva with a murderer, let me say, NO, I am not equating Ken Silva with a murderer or any of the other criminals I mention. I am using the analog to illustrate a point).
___________________________
BILL: What is disturbing to me Richard is that you would expect worldly forces to hide something you have written against another, be he a Brother or lost – there will come a day when all will be revealed and what then with all the hiding you are encouraging by your reliance on TOS’s, which most commenter’s, myself included, have never taken the time to read?
ABANES: That is unbelievable. here we have Ken Silva actulaly BREAKING the law, but rather than condemn that, you actually choose to condemn me for complaining about him breaking the law, and try to turn it back around on me, to accuse me of trying cover up some kind of sin. That is unbelievable to me, when in reality, I have not in any way compromised either the law, or the Bible.
___________________________
BILL: Besides you have seemingly missed it completely that those who are opposed to PD/RW/yourself, etc… are primarily defending the aberrant or heretical teachings that are leading countless people astray into various forms of self-centered ideologies.
ABANES: This is not a thread about Rick Warren, but since you mentioned me in connection to that. I would ask that you please produce from my own writings where I defend ANY doctrine — theological or soteriological — that would lead countless people astray into various forms of self-centered ideologies.” You should be able to find something I have stated somewhere that shows I have compromised on: The nature of God, the person/work of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the eternal state, teh resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming — anything on any of these issues will do.
___________________________
BILL: As to your comment to Chris Rosebrough, what a revealing comment that is Richard, since when in your life did PD and fellowship with Rick Warren become the measuring stick by which all other Christians would be judged?
ABANES: It NEVER has “become the measuring stick by which all other Christians would be judged.” I suggest that you further investigate more carefully EXACTLY who are those persons who have pointed to one’s position on Rick Warren as the measure of Christian fellowship, Christian maturity, Christian commitment to God, and Christian faith. It has not been me. It has been those who have been critical of Rick Warren. For many of these so-called “discerners,” if you do NOT hold their view of Warren, than you are demonic, evil, lost, a deceiver, not a Christian, sold out for money, worldly, man-centered. The list goes on and on. So don’t point the finger at me. Point it at them.
~ Richard Abanes
HUGH: Both your post and that of ipowerweb give no example of Silva’s “offensive material”. You charge him with: “…slanderous innuendo, misleading statements about my character/faith, and negative implications about me that are meant to deliberately harm my professional/personal reputation as a Christian author.” Yet you give no examples of such from Silva’s article. Why not?
ABANES: When/If this becomes necessary, it will be posted.
__________________________
HUGH: Writing to ipowerweb’s “legal dept.” re, “defamation-libel,” would give the impression that you are possibly pursuing legal avenues.
ABANES: I am pursuing Ken Silva’s ISP. That’s what the email indicates.
_________________________
HUGH: Whether this come from a boiler plate or not would be irrelevant to ipowerweb. Talk of talking to attorneys would naturally be seen by them (or Silva) as a legal threat.
ABANES: Well, that’s ken Silva’s problem with being reactionary, isn’t it? Rather than remain calm and thoughtful, he responded as he did, which in turn blew everything up in a way that is most unfortunate for everyone.
__________________________
HUGH: It certainly SOUNDS like a threat of legal action. It seems Silva is merely taking you at your word.
ABANES: But didn’t, did he. He reacted WAY over the top and in doing so made matters just that much worse, not only by acting as he did, but also by going further into problems by blatantly going against copyright/privacy laws that cover personal and private emails. And it amazes me that all of his supporters are just looking the other way when it comes to that offensive/illegal action. It’s truly amazing to me.
___________________________
HUGH: One hopes that ipowerweb did not threaten Silva with site shut-down without first reading his post.
ABANES: That’s an issue with the ISP and their internal policies.
___________________________
HUGH: But perhaps as you cite the specific instances of slander, innuendo, etc. so concerning to you (the award-winning, bestselling author/journalist with twenty books published by major publishing houses) then maybe we all can better assess the situation.
ABANES: When/If this becomes necessary, it will be posted. And, BTW, that is a nice subtle slap of sarcasm in my face in parenthesis.
____________________________
HUGH: Yours for the truth of Christ,
ABANES: Hopefully so.
~ Richard Abanes
THINKINGCAP: Likewise, when you say “Before turning this situation over to my attorneys” and “I have no wish to name X in a legal suit”, I think that a Reasonable Person would regard this as a threat of some further legal action if the desired result is not obtained upon complaint.
ABANES: I cannot help what other people think or assume.
____________________________
THINKINGCAP: After all, you are the one who used the words “legal suit” which would tend to imply that you did not intend to call your lawyers for a round of golf if his ISP didn’t remove the post. It seems disingenuous at best to try to plead that because you haven’t filed a lawsuit, that these words are not meant to be read as a threat of a possible future action.
ABANES: Have I filed a lawsuit? That’s a standard/basic template that is used. I am not going to go around re-writing templates when I can simpy throw it up to use. What has happened as a result of that template lies at the feet of Ken Silva who has turned this into an evangelical/apologetic circus.
____________________________
THINKINGCAP: ….. you haven’t cited any statements like that. If I read your complaint correctly, what seems to be the issue here is that Silva has doctrinal disagreements with you, and publishes what he believes to be the biblical implications of those disagreements regarding your person, which, if these implications were widely accepted by the Christian public, would result in personal and financial damages to your ministry, etc.
ABANES: Incorrect. Read Silva’s article again. He says NOTHING about my doctrine or his doctrine. Where is there ANYTHING in that article about my doctrine? As far as I know, ken Silva and I agree completely on most doctrines (although there are a few minor doctrinal views of his about which I am probably unfamiliar). That article is intended to smear my personal/professional reputation. And there are similar articles out there on the Internet as well, at other blogs and websites.
_____________________________
THINKINGCAP: But hold on a sec. In the heading of your post, you refer to Mr. Silva either directly or by implication as “telling lies, a sin[ner], ungodly, stubborn spirit, false accuser, rant[er] and rave[r], libelous, slander[er], and a man willing to deliberately break the laws of our free land.” Now, as I understand it, Mr. Silva is a full-time pastor who derives his income from a church position. But, it seems to me that a Reasonable Person might easily conclude that your statements in this very post are “negative implications about [him] that are meant to deliberately harm [his] professional/personal reputation as a Christian [pastor].” Certainly if his church members were to read your online comments and believe them, it is likely that he would be dismissed from his position as lacking the necessary moral qualifications, resulting in financial damages to his person. So, then, you would appear to have also done to Mr. Silva exactly what you claim he has done to you.
ABANES: The problem for Silva here, is that I have the documentation to prove it. Here’s one example from the very article in question. Mr. Silva proudly declares: “”As one of my mentors, Dr. Walter Martin, used to put it: We can agree to disagree agreeably”
This is a lie, and it has been called such by others. Of course, it is either a lie, or else Mr. Silva doesn’t even know what the word “mentor” means, which would seriously cast doubt on his ability to make sound doctrinal judgments on anyone, speak on apologetics, or even pastor a church. The fact is that Silva was not mentored by Dr. Walter Martin. He has only listened to old tapes of Martin teaching. That does not a mentor make. A mentor is defined as follows:
There is but one example of how Mr. Silva pads his credentials and seeks to present himself to the world as something more than he is.
_________________________
THINKINGCAP: You have a large library of apologetics books you have authored which are presumably critical of their various targets, and which, if believed by the general public, would result in a loss of membership and finances for those organizations. Should you be held liable for defamation for testing their doctrines against the Scriptures, and stating what you believe to be the biblical conclusions? (BTW, this is exactly how Scientology rolls…
ABANES: Of course not. Don’t be absurd. And no one else, including Ken, should be censored for making doctrinal analysis either. But that’s not what he’s done. Again, I challenge you to find ONE critical statement about anytihng I believe doctrinally in that article — anytihng dealing with my theology, eschatology, soteriology, or thanatology. As I have now stated in most recent post, A TUMULTUOUS TEMPEST IN A VERY SMALL TEAPOT, “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.”
__________________________
THINKINGCAP: You seem certain that Mr. Silva’s ISP has conducted a full investigation and found his post to be defamatory, which you assert as a major point in your favor above. Do you have actual evidence of this? Anyone who has been around on the internet for more than a minute knows that the vast majority of ISPs conduct no investigation of any kind in these situations. They just act on the basis of the complaint, using a “better safe than sorry” policy. This is so common that there are now “1st amendment” hosts that offer a guarantee not to act without an actual court order.
ABANES: I assume the ISP is proceeding per their guidelines. I am not here to police the world. I went through the proper channels, just as if I were complaining to a store supervisor/manager whose job it is to then follow up on my complaint regarding one of his/her workers. It is not MY job to run the store.
__________________________
THINKINGCAP: First, it seems possible that Silva’s ISP placed the text of your email into the text of their email to him, in order to justify their action. This would seem likely, esp. since you were requesting the removal of a specific post. If so, were they violating your copyright when they forwarded your complaint?
ABANES: No. That was understood to be part of the complaint.
__________________________
THINKINGCAP: Do you know for sure that they copied your copyright restriction as well as the text of your email when it was sent to Silva?
ABANES: This is a MOST interesting question — because when I first saw the copy of my email up at Ken Silva’s website, I do believe that it did include not only that copyright notification, but also my private/personal phone number. Such information, however, later on, if memory serves correctly, disappeared. I, unfortunately, did not take a screen shot of it. But it would not be a problem to retrieve the copy of the email that IPOWERWEB sent to Silva.
___________________________
THINKINGCAP: But more importantly, why is it so important to you that it have been kept confidential that you requested the removal of a certain post?
ABANES: It’s not. It’s a matter of principles. We, as Christians, are to obey the laws of the land, which are in place for a reason. A brazen disregard for such laws is indicative of something amiss in our character, or in our understanding of our dual citizenship. It also shows a callous disregard for those governments that God has ordained to be over us.
___________________________
THINKINGCAP: It appears to me that if your stated wishes were followed, the ISP would have notified Silva about an anonymous complaint regarding a certain post and required him to remove it, and neither he nor anyone else in the world would ever have known who made the complaint or why? I’m not sure I understand the big secret?
ABANES: There is no big secret, as far as I am concerned (see previous remarks).
_____________________________
THINKINGCAP: And even if he did “violate federal copyright laws” etc., so has every person in the United States, excepting infants. Ever make a mix-tape from several vinyl albums (dating myself)? Buzz. You broke the law. But let’s say it was wrong, and against the law (not any specific law of God, mind you, but the generic one you cite from Rom 13, and which, considering the Federal Code is thousands of pages long, we’re all guilty world without end, amen). You seem to be magnifying this quoting of your email as if Silva was some kind of daring high-handed sinner, a veritable Captain Morgan of copyright violation. Doesn’t this strike you as maybe a tad overblown?
ABANES: What is overblown is Ken’s reaction. It would be overblown on MY part if I went running off to my attorneys or to the FBI SCREAMING: “Copyright/Privacy Laws! Copyright/Privacy Laws! Copyright/Privacy Laws! Copyright/Privacy Laws!”
_____________________________
THINKINGCAP: Here’s a thought: why not just write a response to whatever he said that you disagree with, and let the readers decide? (That’s what Paul did, repeatedly). Just an idea.
ABANES: Hmm. That’s a choice. Good thought. Here’s another thought. How about if ken removes the article, saves his website, and writes another article that actually does deal with my theology, soteriology, thanatology, or eschatology. That’s another option.
~ Richard Abanes
[...] Ken Silva: More Lies [...]
[...] 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 [...]
READERS ATTENTION
DUE TO THE LEGAL THREAT OF A LAWSUIT NOW BEING MADE AGAINST ME BY CHRIS ROSEBROUGH FOR REMARKS I MADE IN A “COMMENTS” SECTION ON THIS BLOG, I AM LOCKING THIS THREAD AND, UNFORTUNATELY, CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THOSE WHO WERE STILL SEEKING ANSWERS ABOUT MY PERSPECTIVE REGARDING KEN SILVA AND MY REQUEST TO HIS ISP.
THANK YOU FOR STOPPING BY.
RICHARD ABANES
____________
CHRIS ROSBROUGH THREATENS RICHARD ABANES
WITH FULLBLOWN LEGAL ACTION ONLINE:
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
UPDATE
THIS ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN RESOLVED — SEE RESOLUTION.
[...] to those comments I made in the comments section of this blog (see my July 25th, 2008 at 3:30pm July 25th, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. post). In the heat of blogging, we all sometimes get over-emotional and speak either too harshly, [...]
[...] http://richardabanes.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/ken-silva-more-lies-more-sensationalism-more-sin/ [...]