I start with the assumption that the standard is correct because it has self affirmed as being from a divine source.
And can you seriously ask why an opinion based on no standard is better than an opinion based on a fixed, proven standard?
When you have nothing to stand on but your own opinion on any of those topics, you have really nothing to discuss, because you can’t state that your opinion is better or righter than someone else’s.
Example:
Prove that Mother Theresa was a better person than Adolph Hitler, when there are no standards.
How is it self-affirmed? Whose self? Everyone’s?
An opinion about these subjects that we are talking about, is dependent/based/relative on/to one’s belief.
That’s right, because I do not believe that anyone’s opinion in these matters is better or righter than anyone else’s.
That would be impossible, as someone may be a follower of Hitler. I would say she was because she didn’t order the murder of millions, but that is my opinion. That follower of Hitler would disagree, but neither of us could prove anything. It depends on the mores of the time an event occurs. These change with time, region, societies, beliefs, etc. That is why I do not believe in absolute standards. Standards are relative to something.