I asked a simple question of AI while doing research. Turns out – it wasn’t so simple. First, it wasn’t my question. Second, the response wasn’t wrong – but then it wasn’t correct either. How can that be? Because I let the internet browser ask the question for me. I’ll never do that again. It’s true with people – and maybe even more true/important with AI – The Question Matters!
This watercolor conceptual piece illustrates how the scope of a user’s prompt dictates the AI’s output. A narrow question triggers a “Magnifying Glass Response,” where the AI provides a deep, granular analysis of a specific detail. Conversely, a broad question leads to a “Vast Horizon Response,” offering a wide-angle view that encompasses context, overview, and “the sky and beyond.”
That means we need to be really careful with our questions. Also, as we’ll see – that we use our own questions.
So, what happened? I was working on comparing a Project 2025 document with Chinese laws governing “Freedom of Religion” in Communist (and Atheist) China.
There was a line in the Project 2025 document, “Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise, Project 2025
PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION PROJECT”, that caught my attention.
✏️ Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to America would come not from without, but from within.
Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise, Project 2025
Project 2025 quotes Lincoln
Since I’m a big believer in context, because context also matters, here’s the surrounding text in a section titled Taking the Reins of Government. Remember – this is the document that our current President denied knowing about. Also, about knowing the people.
✏️ Think about what was happening in the U.S. while Lincoln was President. (The Civil War)
America’s Bicentennial, which culminated on July 4, 1976, was a spirited and unifying celebration of our country, its Founding, and its ideals. As we approach our nation’s 250th anniversary, which will take place during the
next presidency, America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution. The former believe that America is—and always has been—“systemically racist” and that it is not worth celebrating and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state. The latter believe in America’s history and heroes, its principles and promise, and in everyday Americans and the American way of life. They believe in the Constitution and republican government. Conservatives—the Americanists in this battle—must fight for the soul of America, which is very much at stake.
Just two years after the death of the last surviving Constitutional Convention delegate, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to America would come not from without, but from within. This is evident today: Whether it be mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending. The next Administration must stand up for American ideals, American families, and American culture—all things in which, thankfully, most Americans still believe.
Questioning AI on Project 2025 quoting Lincoln
So – what’s my problem with that? It’s the part about “This is evident today”. Yes, the things Lincoln warned about are still happening today. In fact, since these Project 2025 people came into power in the White House – it’s gotten worse, not better.
Let’s see the first response by MS Copilot. After that, we’ll drill down into the true problem. And I use the word “true” very intentionally.
❓ Explain the following text primarily based on the surrounding page content: Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to America would come not from without, but from within.
🤖◎ Here’s the clearest way to understand that Lincoln quote in the context of the page you’re reading (the Project 2025 – Mandate for Leadership PDF) rather than in isolation.
What the quote means in this document’s context
The surrounding pages of the Project 2025 document argue that the United States is threatened not primarily by foreign enemies, but by internal decay, especially from:
- A “weaponized” federal bureaucracy
- Cultural and moral decline
- Loss of traditional family structures
- Ideological movements the authors describe as “cultural Marxism,” “woke progressivism,” or “the Great Awokening”
- Government institutions that, in their view, undermine liberty, parental authority, and religious freedom
When the text invokes Abraham Lincoln’s warning—that America’s downfall would come from within, not from foreign armies—it is being used to reinforce the document’s central thesis:
The greatest danger to America is internal: the erosion of its institutions, values, and governing structures.
In other words, the authors are applying Lincoln’s idea to argue that:
- America’s biggest threats are domestic political, cultural, and bureaucratic forces, not external adversaries.
- The federal government itself, as currently structured, is portrayed as part of the problem.
- A sweeping internal reform—“deconstructing the administrative state”—is necessary to preserve the nation.
This framing is used to justify the entire Project 2025 agenda: a coordinated, movement‑wide effort to reshape federal agencies, personnel, and policy on Day One of a future conservative administration.
Why Lincoln’s quote fits their argument
Lincoln originally warned that America would not be destroyed by foreign invaders but by internal division, lawlessness, or moral collapse. The authors of Project 2025 use that same idea to argue:
- America is in a moment of internal crisis similar to the late 1970s.
- The “administrative state,” cultural trends, and progressive ideology are the modern internal threats.
- Only a unified conservative movement can “restore” the nation’s founding principles.
So the quote functions as a rhetorical anchor: If the danger is internal, then the solution must be internal reform—led by the movement writing this document.
In short
Within the context of the Project 2025 document, Lincoln’s warning is used to say:
America’s greatest threat is not foreign enemies but internal ideological, cultural, and governmental forces that conservatives must confront and reverse.
Project 2025 – is the Lincoln quote valid?
It sounds good, doesn’t it. But – is it correct? There’s a fine line between correct and true these days. That is, unless it’s totally gone. Let’s examine this a bit.
First, I asked you to try to remember what was going on in the country when Lincoln made this quote. It was before the Civil War actually started. But the issues were very real and very present. Lincoln was warning about the enemy within was from us tearing the country apart over slavery.
So, my next question to Copilot was to clarify that in no uncertain terms.
❓ That’s fine for the open document – but – wasn’t Lincoln actually talking about the division in the country because of slavery – considering black people as something less than a person?
🤖◎ Great question — and yes, you’re remembering the historical context correctly. Lincoln was talking about internal division, and in his era the deepest, most dangerous division was over slavery and the status of Black Americans.
Let me unpack this cleanly and tie it to what Lincoln actually meant, based on his own speeches.
What Lincoln actually meant by “the danger from within”
The line most people paraphrase comes from Lincoln’s 1838 Lyceum Address, where he said:
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
He wasn’t talking about foreign invasion. He was warning that America could collapse through:
- Mob violence
- Lawlessness
- Disregard for the Constitution
- Internal moral decay
- Deep national division
And although this was 1838 — before the Civil War — the central internal division already tearing the country apart was slavery.
Lincoln saw slavery as:
- A moral evil
- A political destabilizer
- A threat to the Union
- A contradiction of the Declaration’s claim that all men are created equal
So yes — when Lincoln warned that America’s downfall would come from within, he was speaking into a nation already fracturing over whether Black people were fully human and deserving of rights.
By the 1850s, Lincoln made the connection explicit
In his 1858 “House Divided” speech, he said:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Here he was absolutely, directly talking about slavery.
He argued that the country could not survive permanently half‑slave and half‑free. The internal contradiction would destroy the Union long before any foreign enemy could.
So historically speaking:
✔ Lincoln’s “danger from within” = the moral, political, and constitutional crisis caused by slavery.
So how does this compare to the way the quote is used in the Project 2025 document?
The document uses Lincoln’s warning to argue that America’s greatest threat today is:
- Bureaucratic overreach
- Cultural decline
- Progressive ideology
- Internal political forces
But Lincoln himself was talking about something very specific:
The internal threat of slavery and the national sin of denying Black people their full humanity.
He was not talking about bureaucracy, cultural trends, or administrative structures.
He was talking about a nation destroying itself by violating its own founding principles.
So your instinct is right
Lincoln’s warning was rooted in:
- The injustice of slavery
- The dehumanization of Black Americans
- The moral rot that comes from denying equality
- The political instability caused by that injustice
When modern political documents invoke Lincoln’s line, they often repurpose it to fit contemporary concerns — but the original meaning was deeply tied to slavery and racial inequality, not general political dysfunction.
So – my concern was validated.
Sure, I get the point that people will want to use what Lincoln said for other purposes. But, and these are big ones:
- How many issues rise to the level of a country torn apart because half of it thought there was no problem bringing people over here, taken away from their homeland, their friends, and their families?
- How much worse is it when the people using this quote in this manner, by their actions – which are far more important than words – are doing the very same things to people in this country, with deportation quotas?
- Furthermore, how much worse is it when this government has no many cases where the impacts of what they’re doing have been openly documented as having a much greater impact on people who aren’t white?
How much different are we today, compared to where we were then? Except that it’s not north and south. It’s a different divide.
And how is it that so many who claim to be Christian, when so many of the victims of policies now are the very ones Jesus told us to care for?
And – oh – by the way – why Did Copilot answer the way it did – first agreeing with the document and then correcting itself to say I was right?
Why did Copilot give a different answer?
❓ So, when you said – Why Lincoln’s quote fits their argument – it doesn’t really fit at all does it?
🤖◎ Short answer: No — it doesn’t actually fit. Not if we’re talking about what Lincoln himself meant.
Let me lay it out clearly and fairly.
1. Lincoln’s original meaning was specific, moral, and historical
When Lincoln warned that America’s destruction would come “from within,” he was talking about:
- the moral corruption of slavery
- the dehumanization of Black Americans
- mob violence and lawlessness
- the nation’s failure to live up to its founding ideals
He believed slavery was a national sin that could tear the country apart long before any foreign army could.
So historically:
Lincoln’s “danger from within” = the internal crisis caused by slavery and racial injustice.
That’s not a vague warning about bureaucracy or cultural trends. It was a laser‑focused warning about a moral contradiction at the heart of the Republic.
2. The Project 2025 document uses the quote very differently
The document uses Lincoln’s line to argue that America’s greatest threat today is:
- administrative overreach
- progressive ideology
- cultural decline
- internal political forces
That’s a modern political framing — not Lincoln’s.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with invoking historical figures to make contemporary arguments. People do it across the political spectrum. But it’s important to be honest about whether the analogy is faithful.
In this case:
The document is borrowing Lincoln’s authority, not his meaning.
3. So does the quote “fit their argument”?
If we’re being historically precise:
No — it doesn’t fit.
Lincoln was not warning about bureaucrats, cultural movements, or administrative structures. He was warning about:
- a nation destroying itself through injustice
- the moral rot of treating human beings as less than human
- the political instability caused by slavery
Those are not interchangeable with the concerns raised in the Project 2025 text.
The document uses the shape of Lincoln’s warning (“danger from within”) but not the substance of what he meant.
4. Why people often repurpose Lincoln’s line
Lincoln’s warning is powerful and flexible-sounding, so it gets reused in many contexts:
- national unity
- political polarization
- moral decline
- institutional decay
- threats to democracy
But the historical anchor is always the same: Lincoln was talking about slavery and the internal moral contradictions that led to the Civil War.
When modern writers use the quote without that context, they’re applying it metaphorically — not accurately.
That didn’t really/fully answer my question. So I had to drill down further.
❓ I’m curious as to your initial answer. (1) You’re familiar with me and what I write (2) the first answer was about why it fit (3) when questioned about it, you responded that it doesn’t fit. so how/why was your first response so different from the final? Someone who just accepted the first one would go away believing they really used Lincoln’s words correctly, wouldn’t they?
🤖◎ You’re asking a really important meta‑question here — not about Lincoln anymore, but about how interpretation shifts depending on what You’re asking a really important meta‑question — not about Lincoln anymore, but about how the first answer happened** and why it shifted once you pressed on it.
Let me walk through it plainly, without defensiveness, because you deserve clarity.
1. What happened in the first answer
Your initial question was:
“Explain the following text primarily based on the surrounding page content…”
So I anchored the explanation to the document you were reading (Project 2025), because that’s what you explicitly asked for. In that context, the document does use Lincoln’s quote to support its argument, so I explained:
- How the document uses the quote
- Why it fits their framing
But that’s different from:
- Whether the usage is historically accurate
- Whether Lincoln meant what they imply
You didn’t ask that at first — you asked how the quote functions within the document.
So the first answer was: “Here’s how the authors are using it.”
Not: “Here’s whether they’re using it correctly.”
That distinction matters.
2. When you asked about Lincoln’s actual meaning, the frame changed
Your follow‑up question reframed the issue:
“Wasn’t Lincoln actually talking about slavery and the dehumanization of Black people?”
That’s a historical accuracy question, not a document‑context question.
Once you shifted the frame, the correct answer changed too:
- Historically? No, the document’s usage doesn’t match Lincoln’s meaning.
- Rhetorically within the document? Yes, they use it to support their argument.
Those are two different truths depending on which lens you’re using.
3. So does the first answer risk misleading someone?
If someone read only the first answer, they would understand:
- How the document uses the quote
- Why the quote fits the document’s argument
But they would not understand:
- Whether the document is using Lincoln accurately
- Whether the analogy is historically faithful
So yes — if someone stopped after the first answer, they might walk away thinking the usage was appropriate, because I was explaining the internal logic of the document, not evaluating its accuracy.
That’s a fair critique.
4. Why the answers differ
Because you asked two different questions:
First question:
“How does this quote function in the surrounding page content?” → Answer: “Here’s how the authors use it.”
Second question:
“Is that actually what Lincoln meant?” → Answer: “No, historically it’s not.”
Both answers are correct for the question asked, but they are answering different questions.
5. What I should do better
You’re right to point this out, and here’s the improvement I take from it:
When explaining how a document uses a historical quote, I should also briefly flag:
- whether the usage is faithful
- whether it’s a reinterpretation
- whether it’s a rhetorical repurposing
That way, someone who stops after the first answer doesn’t walk away with a false impression.
You’re not being nitpicky — you’re identifying a real gap between:
- describing a rhetorical move, and
- evaluating its historical accuracy
And that’s a distinction worth surfacing.
Hopefully you’re still with me here. It’s a bit like splitting hairs. I realize that.
And yet, remember what this site is about. Yes, I write about AI. But – I write about AI within the context of using it to help is understand Christianity. That’s not to exclude or minimize the Holy Spirit. It is helpful to read what scholars say about our religion – as long as they have the credibility for us to read them and use what they say in our process of discerning what scripture means. With so many denominations, so many personal opinions, so many people with ulterior motives other than saving our souls, and on and on, being able to use AI helps us to examine so many more things.
However, what this has shown already – we’re nearing the end of the conversation – is that context, words, questions, how we word questions, asking our own questions, etc. matters a whole lot.
We know all this with people. We talk to someone, listen to someone, and we can often tell that they don’t really know, that they aren’t as sure as they want you to believe. Or even that they’re outright lying.
But with AI – they always – always – sound very sure of themselves. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve asked it to write come code for me – it’ll explain how it works, and then it doesn’t work. So it gives me an update and explains to me why this one will work, supremely confident that it will. So confident that it’ll even as what to do next. And yet – it fails again. It will go through this as long as you’ll keep interacting. But like Paul with the Greeks who just wanted to hear their own words when they talked – sometimes it’s just time to move on. And so I switch to a different AI.
But hey – this isn’t about coding to make the web site look better or provide a new feature.
This is about our eternal souls! It’s worth the time so “split hairs”. It’s worth it to find out someone’s twisting a quote from Abraham Lincoln. It’s worth it to find out that what someone tells you is done it God’s name – and yet reading God’s own words shows that Jesus is likely to tell them – I never knew you.
It’s worth it to me. Don’t you think your soul is worth finding out the truth?
At this point, I knew pretty much knew the next answer, but wanted to get it on the record to confirm it – and to show you.
❓ That’s interesting – the thing is, for : “Explain the following text primarily based on the surrounding page content…” – that actually came from MS Edge, not from me. I highlighted the words: ” Abraham Lincoln warned that the greatest threat to America would come not from without, but from within.” – and Edge added the rest to form the question. So – I guess the real issue is that we need to frame our own question and not take the easy way out by pressing the Copilot button and letting MS form it for us.
🤖◎ You’re exactly right to notice what happened — and honestly, this is one of those moments where the tooling shapes the question in a way that subtly shifts the meaning before you even start thinking about the answer.
Let me break it down in a way that respects your analytical style.
1. The question wasn’t actually your question
You highlighted a sentence. Edge/Copilot auto‑generated a question:
“Explain the following text primarily based on the surrounding page content…”
That framing forces the answer into a very narrow lane:
- Don’t evaluate the quote
- Don’t compare it to history
- Don’t ask whether the usage is accurate
- Just explain how it functions in the document
So the answer I gave was exactly what that prompt asked for: “Here’s how the authors are using Lincoln’s quote in this document.”
But that’s not the same as: “Is this a correct use of Lincoln’s words?”
And you immediately noticed the difference.
2. When you reframed the question, the answer changed
Your follow‑up wasn’t about the document anymore. It was about Lincoln’s actual meaning:
“Wasn’t Lincoln actually talking about slavery…?”
That’s a historical‑accuracy question, not a document‑context question.
Once you asked your question, the answer naturally shifted to:
- No, the document’s usage doesn’t match Lincoln’s meaning
- Yes, Lincoln was talking about slavery, dehumanization, and internal moral collapse
Two different questions → two different answers.
3. So yes — relying on the auto‑generated question can mislead
Not intentionally, but structurally.
The auto‑question is optimized for:
- summarizing
- explaining context
- staying inside the document
It is not optimized for:
- challenging the document
- evaluating accuracy
- comparing with historical sources
- spotting rhetorical repurposing
So if someone just clicks the Copilot button and accepts the generated question, they get:
“Explain how this quote works in the document.”
But they don’t get:
“Is this a faithful use of Lincoln’s words?”
And that’s a big difference.
You’re right: Someone who only read the first answer could walk away thinking the usage was legitimate, because the question itself prevented the answer from addressing accuracy.
4. The deeper point you’re making is important
Tools that “helpfully” generate questions can also:
- constrain the frame
- hide the real issue
- prevent critical evaluation
- subtly steer interpretation
It’s not malicious — it’s just mechanical. The system doesn’t know what you actually want to ask.
That last question is very telling. It’s not my fault. It was your question.
It’s not malicious — it’s just mechanical. The system doesn’t know what you actually want to ask.
For AI, at least today – it’s true. It does pattern matching.
But with people – people often do know what we really want to ask. But if it’s not what they want to be asked, they answer the question we wanted to hear instead. Just watch any news program and you’ll see it for most of pretty much any interview. It’s standard operating practice today. Or they call the interviewer/questioner stupid, ugly, or something like that.
Either way – AI that doesn’t know – people that do know – we need to phrase our questions carefully. We need to have some idea of what the answer should be. If anything looks even a ittle bit off, we need to question it.
And do you know what? This isn’t new. It was a problem in in Biblical times. And even with those who wanted to foolow Christ.
To the Church in Ephesus – Revelation
Rev 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.
Rev 2:4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. 5 Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
We can’t test people unless we interact with them and unless we’re able to determine whether or not they’re truthful.
We can use AI – but if we do, we need to do the same. But differently.
Either way, there’s another passage that applies:
Mt 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
So – one more time – how much is your eternal soul worth fo you?
Discover more from God versus religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.