Civil War or War between States - please advise.

[weary warrior]

8 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

In Lectures to my Students I remember reading that Spurgeon said that if you don't have a "wide chest" (I'm paraphrasing possibly) you are not called to be a preacher.  That remained with me because I thought it odd.

I'm like a contemporary, modern Christian with and Bible, I only pick and choose the Spurgeon quotes that say what I want them to say! :Q

[1611mac]

Here is the full paragraph from Lectures to my Students.

Physical infirmities raise a question about the call of some excellent men. I would not, like Eusthenes, judge men by their features, but their general physique is no small criterion. That narrow chest does not indicate a man formed for public speech. You may think it odd, but still I feel very well assured, that when a man has a contracted chest, with no distance between his shoulders, the all-wise Creator did not intend him habitually to preach. If he had meant him to speak he would have given him in some measure breadth of chest, sufficient to yield a reasonable amount of lung force. When the Lord means a creature to run, he gives it nimble legs, and if he means another creature to preach, it will give it suitable lungs. A brother who has to pause in the middle of a sentence and work his air-pump, should ask himself whether there is not some other occupation for which he is better adapted. A man who can scarcely get through a sentence without pain, can hardly be called to “Cry aloud and spare not?” There may be exceptions, but is there not weight in the general rule? Brethren with defective mouths and imperfect articulation are not usually called to preach the gospel. The same applies to brethren with no palate, or an imperfect one. 

[Bob from England]

7 hours ago, Invicta said:

Not heard that.

In the office where I worked there was once a large overwight Australian lady who tweaked my nose and said "I've always wanted to do that to a Pom."

I think it comes from the phrase "prisoners of mother England" but I'm not certain about that.  The French call us "Les Rosbifs".

[Alimantado]

On 01/03/2017 at 8:07 AM, The real Bob Hutton said:

The French call us "Les Rosbifs".

Trust the frogs to come up with a racist remark like that!

[heartstrings]

On 2/28/2017 at 8:15 PM, 1611mac said:

Here is the full paragraph from Lectures to my Students.

Physical infirmities raise a question about the call of some excellent men. I would not, like Eusthenes, judge men by their features, but their general physique is no small criterion. That narrow chest does not indicate a man formed for public speech. You may think it odd, but still I feel very well assured, that when a man has a contracted chest, with no distance between his shoulders, the all-wise Creator did not intend him habitually to preach. If he had meant him to speak he would have given him in some measure breadth of chest, sufficient to yield a reasonable amount of lung force. When the Lord means a creature to run, he gives it nimble legs, and if he means another creature to preach, it will give it suitable lungs. A brother who has to pause in the middle of a sentence and work his air-pump, should ask himself whether there is not some other occupation for which he is better adapted. A man who can scarcely get through a sentence without pain, can hardly be called to “Cry aloud and spare not?” There may be exceptions, but is there not weight in the general rule? Brethren with defective mouths and imperfect articulation are not usually called to preach the gospel. The same applies to brethren with no palate, or an imperfect one. 

1 Corinthians 1:27King James Version (KJV)

²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

I would say, the Creator would be more likely to choose a narrow chested weakling, than a man who doesn't preach according to the Bible.

[weary warrior]

14 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

1 Corinthians 1:27King James Version (KJV)

²⁷ But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

I would say, the Creator would be more likely to choose a narrow chested weakling, than a man who doesn't preach according to the Bible.

My thoughts exactly. If my understanding from scripture of the likely, possible physical infirmities of Paul is accurate, he probably wouldn't qualify according to CHS. Neither would Timothy with his timidity and "often infirmities".

[heartstrings]

The War Between the States was not a "civil war"; it was about TWO separate countries at war. The South had already seceded from the Union over state's rights. .  It was not over "slavery" but that was added in as propaganda to garner support for the North's cause. Lincoln himself said that his main objective was to preserve the Union whether he freed ANY slaves or not, irregardless of how many Americans he had to kill to do it. . Only a small percentage of the rich even had slaves. I had two uncles who died in the war, one in battle and another in a Northern prison camp. The South was invaded and had to defend their homes from the likes of WT Sherman, notorious for his "march to the sea". 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by heartstrings

[...]

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

I had two uncles who died in the war, one in battle and another in a Northern prison camp

Is this a type-o?  Are you saying that two of your uncles were in the war between the states?

[heartstrings]

Yes, I'm 152 years old.

3xGreat uncles I guess.

My great great great grand daddy was also a Confederate soldier in the war. He survived and became a Baptist preacher.

Edited March 4, 2017 by heartstrings

[1Timothy115]

History sure was a fun course when I was a child in school.

[...]

12 minutes ago, 1Timothy115 said:

History sure was a fun course when I was a child in school.

I used to think the same thing until I started to learn that so much of what they taught us was untrue and revisionist.  I think the current subject of this thread is a good example of that.  In Michigan in the 70's we were taught that the Civil War was fought because a bunch of racist, backwoods, redneck white supremacists wanted to keep their slaves and the white as know, knights in shining armor of the North wanted to free them.  Obviously, that's a summary of the attitudes here, but that's how it was presented to us.  Come to find out, that wasn't quite the case, now was it?

Edited March 4, 2017 by Brother Stafford

[1Timothy115]

21 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

I used to think the same thing until I started to learn that so much of what they taught us was untrue and revisionist.  I think the current subject of this thread is a good example of that.  In Michigan in the 70's we were taught that the Civil War was fought because a bunch of racist, backwoods, redneck white supremacists wanted to keep their slaves and the white as know, knights in shining armor of the North wanted to free them.  Obviously, that's a summary of the attitudes here, but that's how it was presented to us.  Come to fins out, that wasn't quite the case, now was it?

I believe history has become a course in pick your own revision.

Edited March 4, 2017 by 1Timothy115

[...]

1 minute ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I wonder if history has become a course in pick your own revision.

History itself cannot be changed.  The way history is taught is another matter and I believe it is most definitely being taught subjectively now; there's no need to wonder about it. 

[1611mac]

Yes... I often would like to hear George Patton's version of The History of WWII.  History has him dying in Germany in an car accident just days before he was to come back to the States where he was planning on writing a "tell all" book. Some believe he was killed by the Soviets (auto wreck was a setup) and some believe he was killed by our own Government.  Good book for anyone interested: Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton by Wilcox.  

[1Timothy115]

 

5 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

Yes... I often would like to hear George Patton's version of The History of WWII.  History has him dying in Germany in an car accident just days before he was to come back to the States where he was planning on writing a "tell all" book. Some believe he was killed by the Soviets (auto wreck was a setup) and some believe he was killed by our own Government.  Good book for anyone interested: Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton by Wilcox.  

I don't wonder. I will replace wonder with believe in the previous post of mine.

It will not matter in heaven what you or I have come to understand about the Civil War?

Edited March 4, 2017 by 1Timothy115