Abraham Lincoln's meditation on the divine will

[Aurelius2]

This is something I think about often.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.

—A. Lincoln, September 1862

Source, including background context: https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/meditat.htm

[PSOL]

The only existential threat to the Union was the confederates who themselves barely invested in worthwhile infrastructure to be prepared to defeat the Union. An agrarian slave state keen on cavalry which does not even focus on food is going to lose to an industrial powerhouse which has an effective navy.

Lucky for Lincoln his side had all the massively politically talented people and a more participating society for good ideas to be promoted more often than the south, while men like Patrick Cleburne, an understander of historical patterns on Greco-Roman society, don’t go up the ladder. Most materialists went with the Union.

[Aurelius2]

To be completely honest, I could not be less interested in materialist analyses of the Civil War, except perhaps with regard to the divided loyalties in the border states.

[PSOL]

To be completely honest, I could not be less interested in materialist analyses of the Civil War, except perhaps with regard to the divided loyalties in the border states.

How are we to understand a property dispute without acknowledging the tangible aspect?

[Aurelius2]

PSOL, I did not create this thread to discuss industrial infrastructure or northern vs southern political institutions. I posted this in the R&P subforum for a reason. If you wish to discuss materialist analysis, could you please take it to another thread? Thank you.

[LabourJersey]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, PSOL, this isn't the thread, and honestly not really the board, for the direction you're trying to go here.

[Aurelius2]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

Yes, Michael Burlingame, who probably knows more about Lincoln than anyone else alive today, believes that Lincoln's psychological maturity is the biggest factor behind his greatness. After reading his (extremely long, two volume, 1800 page) biography of Lincoln, and taking some time to let it marinate, I have come to agree with him on this.

As for the religious aspect, maybe this is a half baked analysis because I'm working with a sample size of 2, but there seems to be something for great minds coming from people who were raised in intensely fundamentalist Calvinist households, rejected this Calvinism, but retained some sort of detectable Calvinist footprint in their later religious and spiritual philosophy. John Muir is the other part of this sample of 2 I refer to, and what has been called his "inverted Calvinism" is quite clear when reading his works. As I was writing this reply I also thought of 19th century New England, in that period of transition between the fire-and-brimstone Jonathan Edwards style Calvinism of their forebears, and their descendants who blended indistinguishably into broader liberal modernity. There was a great efflorescence of incredible thought from that region in that era, and those figures were well known for having a very strong religious influence, even as their own views were often wildly, uh, unique to the point that it's become a trope that they often wrote whole books on their particular heretical spiritualities.

I don't really know where I was going with this, just some things I find interesting.

[RINO Tom]

The only existential threat to the Union was the confederates who themselves barely invested in worthwhile infrastructure to be prepared to defeat the Union. An agrarian slave state keen on cavalry which does not even focus on food is going to lose to an industrial powerhouse which has an effective navy.

Lucky for Lincoln his side had all the massively politically talented people and a more participating society for good ideas to be promoted more often than the south, while men like Patrick Cleburne, an understander of historical patterns on Greco-Roman society, don’t go up the ladder. Most materialists went with the Union.

I like how you’re talking about “materialists” like they were statistically significant here or as if any major figure in the Civil War held your obnoxiously anti-theist views.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

The Second Inaugural Address is one of the most powerful religio-political speeches ever. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”

[LabourJersey]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

Yes, Michael Burlingame, who probably knows more about Lincoln than anyone else alive today, believes that Lincoln's psychological maturity is the biggest factor behind his greatness. After reading his (extremely long, two volume, 1800 page) biography of Lincoln, and taking some time to let it marinate, I have come to agree with him on this.

As for the religious aspect, maybe this is a half baked analysis because I'm working with a sample size of 2, but there seems to be something for great minds coming from people who were raised in intensely fundamentalist Calvinist households, rejected this Calvinism, but retained some sort of detectable Calvinist footprint in their later religious and spiritual philosophy. John Muir is the other part of this sample of 2 I refer to, and what has been called his "inverted Calvinism" is quite clear when reading his works. As I was writing this reply I also thought of 19th century New England, in that period of transition between the fire-and-brimstone Jonathan Edwards style Calvinism of their forebears, and their descendants who blended indistinguishably into broader liberal modernity. There was a great efflorescence of incredible thought from that region in that era, and those figures were well known for having a very strong religious influence, even as their own views were often wildly, uh, unique to the point that it's become a trope that they often wrote whole books on their particular heretical spiritualities.

I don't really know where I was going with this, just some things I find interesting.

Your quote I bolded is really interesting. I for one greatly disagee with Calvinism as a philosophy, while finding it especially interesting. It influenced the religious thought of so many, especially so much of American Protestantism.

Also, if you haven't read Gilead by Marilynne Robinson I highly recommend it - it reckons with religion and faith in a Calvinist way that's incredibly thought provoking and engaging. The best book I've read recently.

[LabourJersey]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

The Second Inaugural Address is one of the most powerful religio-political speeches ever. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”

Its power is one of the reasons why Lincoln is the American leader I most respect.

I don't know of another President who would have written something like that Address. And only a small number of American politicians who could have, too.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     God's mind is unsearchable, but I would note that the Bible says "whom the Lord loves He chastens". The modern mind tends to think of suffering and hardship as disasters, but this is not necessarily true in the Christian mindset. Perhaps the contest was permitted so that America as a nation could benefit and grow more perfect, vis a vis another outcome where slavery have been done away with without conflict.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

The Second Inaugural Address is one of the most powerful religio-political speeches ever. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”

Its power is one of the reasons why Lincoln is the American leader I most respect.

I don't know of another President who would have written something like that Address. And only a small number of American politicians who could have, too.

Lincoln remains one of the very few capital-W Writers to have been President. There are others, like some of the Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, and some of the time Obama, but Lincoln might be the only one who could have attained lasting fame as a poet or an aphorist even if he had never left Springfield.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Thought OP would also link Lincoln's Second Inuagural Address, which touches on most of these exact themes.

Lincoln there and in the excerpt above sounds remarkably humble and honest in a way that very, very few wartime leaders ever have the courage to be (and it does take courage to be humble!). To reckon with the question of why God allowed for this war, and whether or not God wants the Union to survive and win this war, are very serious and hard questions to consider.

I always respected Lincoln for that attitude. I understand he came from a Calvinist family and the question of predestination and who is the "elect" seems very close to the questions he reckons with here.

The Second Inaugural Address is one of the most powerful religio-political speeches ever. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'”

Its power is one of the reasons why Lincoln is the American leader I most respect.

I don't know of another President who would have written something like that Address. And only a small number of American politicians who could have, too.

Lincoln remains one of the very few capital-W Writers to have been President. There are others, like some of the Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, and some of the time Obama, but Lincoln might be the only one who could have attained lasting fame as a poet or an aphorist even if he had never left Springfield.

Teddy Roosevelt got in literary disputes during his presidency. Imagine that happening today!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_fakers_controversy

[Alben Barkley]

Lincoln was a Deist as I understand it. He never joined any church, he was described by younger friends as a skeptic if not an outright atheist. Even in his older age, he expressed significant doubts. I honestly see a lot of myself in Lincoln. We both desperately WANT TO believe in some higher power and have ideas about what that higher power might be like, but at the same time we find it hard to reconcile genuine belief in said higher power with the realities of the circumstances of our lives. We don't believe in NOTHING but we do question whether whatever is out there actually cares about us or is on our side.

It's honestly the toughest hurdle for me to overcome as I seek to rejoin the Church, this basic doubt. "I believe; Lord, help my unbelief!" basically sums it up for me.

[LabourJersey]

Lincoln was a Deist as I understand it. He never joined any church, he was described by younger friends as a skeptic if not an outright atheist. Even in his older age, he expressed significant doubts. I honestly see a lot of myself in Lincoln. We both desperately WANT TO believe in some higher power and have ideas about what that higher power might be like, but at the same time we find it hard to reconcile genuine belief in said higher power with the realities of the circumstances of our lives. We don't believe in NOTHING but we do question whether whatever is out there actually cares about us or is on our side.

It's honestly the toughest hurdle for me to overcome as I seek to rejoin the Church, this basic doubt. "I believe; Lord, help my unbelief!" basically sums it up for me.

Lincoln attended local Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches in Washington during his presidency, though he never joined those churches. So your point is mostly true, but Lincoln did see some value in organized religion (though less than many other men in his time).

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Even if i probably also - prefer it of being true - i don't really believe at all. I'm kind of a hard sceptic to all forms of organized religion. I tolerate individual experiencing of a religion or belief, but organized religion kinda disgust me. Especially since even if something like an upper being would exist, it would be nothing like the "organized religion" preaches, because how would they know. Besides no-one else has to demand from me in what I believe and how I belief and it's basically a thought you can't really decide on your own whether you want to belief, because its being taught to you while growing up, basically acting like propaganda but uncriticized and tolerated one.

The system of organized religion today is a bit outdated, but it was useful as a method of oppression during the medieval ages. If you asked someone: "why am i farmer and why are you a prince?" The prince could reply: "because that's what God had in mind for you". It is very useful in keeping people in check and requesting them to obey you. It is also historically a very good motive for hate towards other people and/or going to war with people who did not believe in the same religion you did as a casus belli (heretics, heathens).

It always has been a system of spreading hate, at least it was in the case for Abrahamic religions.

Needless to say i'm a hard sceptic, and I tend to believe few people exist in the world that are as skeptic about it as I am, as i feel most people still leave the door open for the possibility. I just it does not exist, or at least doesn't come close to anything we have in mind. The concept is too human-centric. I don't believe there is a "God for the muslims", a "God for the Christians" etc or even "a God for the humans", as that makes absolutely not sense. The universe is so much bigger than that. And it is actually much more impressive than the very simple and basic view of a human-centric God (even if one doesn't necessarily rule out the other).

I don't think i can 100% rule it out (but it has to be something beyond the scale of an universe). What i can rule out, is an afterlife. I'm 100% sure that does not exist. It doesn't even have to, creation requires destruction, it's a pattern we see everywhere, even the origin of the universe itself. The death of dinosaurs paved the way for new creatures to shine, the eruptions of volcanoes cause new fertile land to be created, the concept of a supernova embodies it. Wherever you look, you'll find this concept over & over again. Without past destruction, there would have been no "us" too. That's essential in evolution. And evolution seems to be recurring as a concept in basically everything: sociological evolution, evolution of creatures, even evolution of matter as a whole. When something is destructed, something new is created that tends to often even transcends the former. It's how animal species changed, it's why we're not microbiological life, but humans today.

And at the end of the day, all there is conscience, what makes humans humans is conscience of our own being. There is no conscience of death and nothing, which means that there is only conscience. While we will lose memory of what we individually we were, we continue to exist and evolve as a collective. As long, beings are born it is fine if beings also die. There have been people before us, and there'll be people after us. And a part of us will be transferred to our children, to the next generations over & over again until they become something of their own. (and yes i'm very well aware that this might be robots, but honestly... that might not even be a bad thing as we fail to take care of our own home, perhaps robots would do better).

I'm not afraid of death. I'm afraid of dying, but i'm not afraid of death itself.