[Renee]

Originally Posted by jerry

There is a world of difference between being "uncultured" or rough in speach, and being rude (ie. in the sense of slandering others and using unbiblical insults) or crude. One is just the person's personal style - which should never be the basis of our critiquing of his message - the other is sin. The Bible quite clearly teaches us to guard our tongues, not be crude in our speach (can't remember the exact terms used right now), and that we will give account of what we say to others.

The Bible also tells us to judge people by their fruits - doctrine and words are fruit. We are commanded to expose what is wrong - that would include exposing rotten fruit when it shows up.

Ephesians 5:3-4 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Funny how some reprove those who are reproving sin!...

Doctrine and words are fruit? Chapter and verse.


Both Eph.5:3-4 & 11 do not apply here. You are referring to his marriages? Don't judge if you don't know the circumstanses. Let God be the judge of that. ( Contrary to what some people believe Dr Ruckman does not believe in divorce for any reason) God has blessed his work tremendously, it has not been unfruitful. Do not judge his style. The Lord has blessed him with a long and fruitful ministery. God has even blessed him with a Proverb 31 wife. I dare to say that is a gift and a blessing that only God can give to a man. It is one way of saying "well done thou good and faithful servant.

[George]

[QUOTE=Jeff;2838]

Originally Posted by Renee

I'll ask you the same question George asked me, as impertinent as it may be; did you read his words? He is clearly quick to jump on those who dare to even question Dr. Ruckman. George feels free to criticize those who disagree with him, but no one else should have the same right. Why do you think he didn't attack Pbiwolski for this quote that sarted this new round:


Jerry's response to this was justified, yet Jerry is the one accused of bringing this subject back up.

Jerry hasn't been accused of "bringing the subject back up" - He and Brother Tim were the first ones to "criticize" brother Ruckman. Uncalled for - they could have just criticized Pbiwolski and left it at that.

[George]

[QUOTE=Jeff;2838]

Originally Posted by Renee

I'll ask you the same question George asked me, as impertinent as it may be; did you read his words? He is clearly quick to jump on those who dare to even question Dr. Ruckman. George feels free to criticize those who disagree with him, but no one else should have the same right. Why do you think he didn't attack Pbiwolski for this quote that sarted this new round:


Jerry's response to this was justified, yet Jerry is the one accused of bringing this subject back up.

Brother Jeff, (Re: Post #40)

"Jerry's response to this was justified, yet Jerry is the one accused of bringing this subject back up."

Jerry hasn't been accused (at least not by me) of "bringing the subject back up" - My point from the beginning of this "fracas" is that: He and Brother Tim were the first ones to "criticize" brother Ruckman again (after having been so critical in many of their past posts. When does it end? Or everytime brother Ruckman's name comes up is it open season - again and again?) Their criticism was was uncalled for - If they had a "problem" with Pbiwolski they could have just criticized Pbiwolski and left it at that.

George

[George]

Double Post - Please Ignore.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Geologist, may your own words judge you.

How is this criticizing Dr. Ruckman?

George, maybe all your words are just to much for me, or maybe my words aren't coming out right.

Can you answer me clearly:
-Did you or did you not criticize Jerry and Brother Time for criticizing Dr. Ruckman?
-If you did:
-Was it prompted by these last two quotes from them?
-Were they out of line for asking these questions?
-Were they even really an attacks on Dr. Ruckman?
-Do they have the right to give their views?
-If not, is that not a double standard to say they shouldn't give their views while those with opposing views go unchallenged?
-Is it not a double standard to suggest that they should not criticize Dr. Ruckman as you criticize them?

-Do you criticize Geologist or whoever else defends Dr. Ruckman?
-Do you feel that whoever defends him should be free from any criticism?

-Do you believe Jerry, Tim, or anyone else has the right to criticize Dr Ruckman?
-You have acknowledged that they have read some of his material, correct?
-If you don't believe they have the right to criticize him; why not?
-Have you never found anything Dr. Ruckman said or wrote not to be appropriate?

-Are you not saying Dr Ruckman should not be criticized by people who don't know him?
-Could we not say by the same argument that we should not criticize Jeremiah Wright?
-What's the difference?

-Are you not saying we should end any discussion of the character of Dr. Ruckman right now because you don't like it?
-If someone disagrees with you on this subject are they automatically wrong?

-Did you criticize Geologist for bringing this subject back up?
-Did you find the remark having to do with sticking your head in a bucket appropriate?
-If not, why only criticize Jerry and Tim?

I just got your last post before I finished:

Jerry hasn't been accused of "bringing the subject back up" - He and Brother Tim were the first ones to "criticize" brother Ruckman. Uncalled for - they could have just criticized Pbiwolski and left it at that.

-Then why did you bring this back up?
-If someone else brings it back up should they have no right to respond?
-When is someone giving their opinions (especially based on reason), views, or convictions "uncalled for"?

[George]

I replied to the whole post and somehow lost my reply right at the end.
I will reply tomorrow.

George

[George]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Geologist, may your own words judge you.

Aloha Brother Tim,

I have another apology to make to you for including you in my criticism of those who have been critisizing brother Ruckman - again.

In my haste to defend brother Ruckman I mis-read your post to Geologist and thought it was directed at brother Ruckman.

I have NO EXCUSE, and I ask your forgiveness. This is the second time I have apologized to you, but this time I committed a much more egregious error - no - sin!

I should have been more careful in my reading, and you may be sure that I will be far more careful in the future.

Again, I'm sorry for mis-casting you in the wrong light. I am going to make every effort to see that it won't happen again.

Your brother in Christ ,

George

[George]

Originally Posted by geologist

For the record, I think that people who object to Dr. Ruckman's sense of humor, and decry his "foul" language, are a bunch of pious, thin skinned nannys. Dr. Ruckman was an infantry officer, played in bars with jazz bands, was raised Catholic and was a real hell raiser before he was saved in a radio station studio where he was working as a DJ. He has a much better grasp on REAL human behavior, and the depravity of unsaved mankind, than most of you reading and posting here. I too came from a similar background and understand why the man talks like he does. I respect him for that. I know where he has been. Most of you havn't seen the uglier side of life, or you would understand where he is coming from.

Having said that, I don't agree with everything the man says. And to be honest, I too think he goes a little over the top sometimes. But, you know what? He calls a spade a spade. He gets people's attention and he's not afraid to speak his mind and tell it like it is. And I personally would rather hear a real man telling it like it is, than some sissy voiced, half effemenant, politically correct preacher spouting cliches and singing cumba ya.

The Lord has called each of us to be fishers of men. You don't snage sharks and baracuddas with frilly little pretty hand tied trout flies. You toss out some bloody meat if you want to get the bad fish. Each of us has a calling and the Lord calls all types to His service. Who are you to critize what the Lord has raised up in Peter Ruckman? He will stand or fall to the Master. And if you don't like this kind of plain speaking, then stick your head in a bucket three times and pull it out twice.

Here endeth the sermon.

Aloha brother,

I just wanted to let you know that I was mistaken about Brother Tim's Post. When I read it, I thought he was criticizing brother Ruckman when he was actually criticizing you (the "bucket remark").

Although he has been critical of brother Ruckman in the past, he was not criticizing him now, and I was terribly mistaken in including him in with brother Jerry as those who have been quick to criticize him again.

I have apologized to him - since I definitely was in error.

Your brother in Christ,

George

[George]

Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Tim View Post

Geologist, may your own words judge you.

"How is this criticizing Dr. Ruckman?"
(It wasn't. I hastily read Brother Tim's post and thought he was criticizing brother Ruckman. I have apologized to Brother Tim for casting him in a bad light. (See Post #57)

Since I lost all of my reply to your last post - I will answer it tomorrow.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by George

On 3/11/08 (Page 10) I returned with a lengthy personal testimony about my relationship and knowledge of brother Ruckman and after a few comments by some of the brethren (most of which were "favorable" to brother Ruckman) there has been no criticism of him until now.

What is the criticism you are referring to? Brother Tim and Jerry were simply making legitimate responses to other posts if it's what I'm thinking about.

I find it very "instructive" that the same two people didn't hesitate to (once again) jump on brother Ruckman and freely criticize him. I thought we were done with that, but I guess as long as you are "nice" and "sweet" about it, that you can "bad mouth" a brother whenever you want to!

If it is those two posts I believe you're talking about you must be awfully thinskinned yourself. One simply pointed out the rudeness in another's post and didn't attack Dr. Ruckman at all. The other asked a legitiamte question. I still believe that it is you dragging the matter on by making these charges.

I don't know exactly why Brother Tim has a problem with brother Ruckman, but I do have a strong suspicion as to why brother Jerry has a "bone of contention" with him.

I'm not to read anything into your words even though your intent seems clear, yet you can make conjecture about someone else's motives.

But I am going to make a promise to the "brethren" on this Forum: You may rest assured every time I see someone "criticize" brother Ruckman they are going to hear from me.

There are a lot of threads on this Forum that are worthwhile - we don't need "fried Ruckman" for lunch every once in a while!

"On your say so we're not supposed to give our views on Dr. Ruckman if they're not positive." (Once again - You are trying to put words in my mouth. Please quote what I said not, what you "think" I "mean".

What you said is just so much different than the "words I put in your mouth"