The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[tackattack]

---

. . . If you're advocating philanthropy and generosity as a self-regulated guide is more effective than Jesus for self improvement I would beg to differ. What process is not better improved from setting an objective standard? . . .

I can think of a huge number of processes which are not improved by setting an "objective standard." And even if an objective standard is arguably better, why must one insert "Jesus" as the objective standard?

By most accounts I have read and heard, disregarding whether the Bible is "objective" or not (or even a good standard), those accounts refer to "personal relationships," &c. Those are subjective standards, subject of course to the person interpreting.

My two cents, back to your own discussion. Just thought I would poke my head in on something that didn't quite make sense to me.

---

Feel free to interject. I fel much more comfortable answering questions and clarifying than postulating unknowables or outright mental masturbation. Please feel free to list some examples of processes that aren't imporved by an objective standard.

You're speaking of the Christian idom of a personal relationship with God. I agree to an extent that it's subjective. I feel the Holy Spirit is an objective piece of God we use for that task (objective). I'm aware though most atheists and all materialists jus consider this talking to myself (subjective).

I was speaking of God as an objective moral standard through the example of Christ Jesus, however. One doesn't have to inject Jesus into it. One could interject Stalin, Ghandi, mother theresa, Darwin, Einstein, etc. One could also use a fluctuating standard liek societal morality or personal morality / conscience. I personally though feel they are less effective, and consequently less useful, standards.