If you say that we are saying that vaules (not truth) are not objective, then if you claim that jesus and the bible are true in your mind then it means it is still not true. It is still not true because the lack of accesss to objective values does not mean that whatever value you invent is true, it will only be believed to be true by the person making the value, no one else has to accept it. So saying people do not know what is true, is not the same as saying anything is true as long as someone believes it is.Saying there is no objective value to anything is dangerous because then you are saying that truth does not exist. I can make up truth and say it is true because it is true in my mind. For example, I believe Jesus and the bible is true because it is true in my subjective thought....therefore we can conclude that it is actual truth.
Secondly, one can not make the jump from objective truth to truth as a concept. Many people believe in things that are not true. However we also all believe in things that actually are true to for example the sun is bigger than my house, or I am not a purple monster, that is a fact. So the game becomes a game of ppulling ideas away from subjectivity. It becomes a judgment of which ideas are true-that is agree with the actual world and its events, and which ideas are bullshit.
A huge chunk of ideas can be judged by their public varifiablity their explanitory power, their predictive power, and their empiricle evidence, and their cosistancy with other established ideas via bridge principles and so on. Once we agree on what hot is, we can infer that fire is hot, snow is not hot etc.
Basically we are much better at learning about the truth of objective reality than we are at learning about subjective judgments made about that reality. My suggestion was to merge the two. First thing we can say is that all the ideas and value judgments that are not rooted in the objective reality like religions, should be rejected.
Most of the fucked up moral systems or unworkable methods for things like health, agriculture, the environment, space, science, politics ect stem from silly religious beliefs which have NO ties to the empiricle world or objective reality.
IE. irrigaiton works better than praying for rain. Slavery is immoral even if some old fart has a book saying it is OK.
I don't think icconoclast was saying that true does not exist. He said that truth does exist. But truth is not something that humans know it is something we have to discover. Like you said it is hard but not imposssible. Some value judgments however will always be subjective, for example, I like Brunettes. That is not a moral issue or an objective truth but it is still true.