Why is it that people feel so compelled to justify their beliefs (to themselves or to others) if truth is ‘merely’ objective? Anyone arguing for a pure form of objectivism (I’m not sure what that means) while discounting subjective proof seems to me to be self-contradictory. To such an individual: Your expression of belief/knowledge/feeling/whatever of the ultimate superiority of objectivity is not possible without a subject (you). Truth must be true to somebody. This idea, which alone may seem absurd, makes more sense if one holds a related idea- that is, that God is a Perfect Person, a subjective individual, our literal Father, that comprehends and is the originator of all truth. Put those two ideas together, munch on it a while, and tell me what you think.
IMHO, it adds an unnecessary element. Either one or the other should be sufficient.
you’re right, they’re both essentially the same, one is really an explanatory note on the other.
Unless you take the meaning of Truth to be evident without the Self.
It is Completly Possible for what I believe for example to exist without me as the subject and it does has and always will.
I believe in an Infinite Universe. Truth is what is there, no matter what is believed. What is the TRUTH. Rather than ones Oppinion of such.
There is a truth there that has always been and always will and its a simple one:
The Universe is ever changing, infinite. You as an individual create it through your objectiveness everyday, and yet do not change the founding principal of what the Truth is.
Truth is the blank slate upon which all things exist and are created. everything else is just an illusion.
Read my Sig:
sees. 
Btw… I do like your freckles, Brandon. 
Well, first off, objectivism is a philosophy piloted by Ayn Rand, I believe some time in the mid twentieth century, but do not quote me on the time-period as I really don’t care enough about her to make sure that it is accurate. The idea with objectivism is that everything is as it seems, and it is just that; if you’re a Satanist or a youngster this is fine theory.
The thing is that proof is thought to be birthed in objectivism, rather than proof being subjective at all. Of course, if we really want to twist the cap we can say the existence is subjective to perception, then I’m sure it will fizz over, seeing as a lot of people have already shaken that bottle.
You have half the idea here. We are required to exist to interpret reality and thus it is what it is to us, and hence subjective. The idea, however, with God is that he is not an individual at all. If you are indeed right he also has less to do with truth than you would think the Xtians think. It seems that God is, indeed, objective; we have common experience, but how we interpret that experience is unique (until we get into birthdays) but the idea is that the common ground is the actual truth.
The problem with religious zealots is that they market their zeal based on abstractions of the object. God doesn’t like fags, we’re Catholic – God doesn’t mind fags, we’re deluded homosexuals raised in a Christian home. The problem is not in the give, but in the take. We take what we want from any situation, so nothing is uniform without conformity. Conformity is fine, if you’re into that sort of thing, but anything you have to conform to you are obviously making allowances for.
The real truth of the matter is that individuality – the individuation of experience – is the only truth. It seems so tired, but in the end whatever we need to do for ourselves is the right thing. I’m sure I’ll get flack from some 17 year old call me a nihilist on that one, but in the end it’s all there is. Objectivity is where your standing and truth is how you swivel your hips.