Allison, here is a drawing that the Lord showed me a while ago that depicts him being outside time. The line inside of the o represents eternity
Alison, I have one more thought that I want to share. My husband and I have contemplated how as Christian parents we often seem consumed with protecting our children from being exposed to any evil lest they fall prey to it’s unholy temptations. We have seen that in many families at least. In those families there was a lack of teaching the children about faith and more about fear of bad influences keeping our children from following Christ. We saw the sad results of this as their children grew and some rejected their parent’s teaching and God and others just had messed up lives as they tried to follow the rules as they as flawed humans saw them to remain pure (purity culture movement), not relying on the Spirit to guide them.
Then we contemplated how often young people fall away from their Christian upbringing only to come back after a life of sin and desire a relationship with our Lord. We knew a pastor who raised his children in the faith and worked alongside his children ministering to the lost. His son for some reason became angry at God in his teen years and rebelled. He ended up in prison but his parents and friends prayed every day for him. Now this man is one of the most zealous people for Christ that I have ever seen. He seemed to need to go through that time of rebellion to see how much Christ has done for him.
My husband has since said that he would rather any of our children fall into sin and realize their need for a Savior than follow the rules of remaining a pure Christian and always think they are saved when they are not. It is not that we don’t think a deluded “Christian” cannot ever realize their folly and become saved, but our conclusion is that even while we as parents should do our best to teach our children about God’s love and what He has done for us, our worst fear should not be that they fall into sin as many seek to dread. That falling into sin, while not pretty to look at, may be just what brings them home again in true repentance, finally understanding their need for a Savior. It would be nice if we could all just trust in the Lord easily and spare our parents any heart ache over how we live, but often our journey to Christ is not like that. The important thing is how we love those that have chosen not to accept Christ, how we love the Lord and are a witness to His glory here on earth while they are following a path of sin. God’s love wins in the end and many will eventually see that and come to Him.
Thank you for the follow-up discussion. You make some interesting points.
When I refer to science questions and propositions as objective, I mean as matters of observable fact. An example might be that copper conducts electricity. There are certain stipulations necessary for that statement to be true, most of which are minutia (not withstanding the inability to philosophically prove anything to 100% certainty, although for the purposes of science, it is a certainty to within all practical limits). So, the statement copper conducts electricity as a statement of fact is quite objective (ie, it doesn’t depend on my opinion what the verb conduct means, or what the noun electricity and copper are–to go down that path is to go down the non-sense trail where nothing has meaning).
Plato in one of his Socratic dialogues, Euthyphro, addresses this question quite succinctly (ca. 400 BC). The net of the salient dialogue is that Socrates rhetorically asks Euthyphro ‘What are the reasons men argue? Is it not over things that are disputable rather than the indisputable? After all, concerning the indisputable, all one must do is measure the questioned quality or quantity and they will by measurement quickly come to the same conclusion.’ Plato goes on to present the contrary argument wrt the subjective frame (eg, that the disputable matters are subject not to direct measurement but to the perceptions and beliefs of the parties involved).
In terms of morality and ethics being subjective, I mean that we cannot by direct measurement prove an observation is right or wrong, good or bad. Science can tell us how to build a nuclear bomb but not whether we should use it, and if so under what conditions–only metaphysics (ie, philosophy and/or religion) can tell us what we should and should not do/think/feel, etc. One may argue that seeing someone mistreated is wrong and we may feel it strongly enough to compel us to action, but we cannot prove it is wrong objectively as objective facts are merely that, objective facts. That’s the boundary of science, it theoretically stops at observable and objective facts [clearly, practical science does frequently violate this bound and necessarily so–this is where innovation comes from, as well as the scientist’s’ own biases (as you correctly cited)].
C. S. Lewis was converted from atheism to theism to Christianity in progressive steps or phases. The seminal step seems to have been, as it frequently is for most/many atheists, via a scientific apologetic (ie, objective facts) that rendered theism credible, coherent, cogent, rational, and warranted–by providing strong evidence and sound arguments (cosmogony, cosmology, abiogenesis, etc.). The next steps seems have been motivated from metaphysical or subjective insights (ie, morality, ethics, etc.).
The argument you make that the moral/ethical frame is objective rather than subjective has some merit based on Paul’s writings and Lewis’ writings. In Mere Christianity, Lewis cites the moral imperative as a universal standard outside of man (and the universe) as one of the proofs of God’s existence. Paul, in Roman’s 1 makes a similar declaration. And, wrt the Christian understanding, morality and ethics are an objective standard set by God. But apart from Christianity, morality and ethics reside w/in the subjective domain–not to say that morality is relative (relativism and subjectivity are not necessary identical).
Thanks again for your thoughts.