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.
I just read your post. You are correct. We really don’t agree.
If all standards are relative, there are LITERALLY no standards. That is the position of an atheist - or a wishy-washy agnostic.
You are right about one thing. Standards are relative to something. They are relative to God.
Starting from the bottom, you’ve shown the absurdity of rejecting the idea of absolute standards.
And, you when you reject the idea of absolute standards, you have stated that there is no way to really know anything, as all things are just a matter of human opinion, and no human’s opinion can be any “better” than any other’s, because there is nothing to judge it against.
As for the “self affirmation” of the divine nature of Scripture,
there are many reasons to assert this, but first and foremost,
it affirms its divine source through fulfillment of SPECIFIC prophecy, as verified by eye witnesses within the same lifetime as other eyewitnesses who could have refuted the claims, but did not.
The odds of these fulfillments have been characterized as the equivalent of being struck by lightning over 2000 times.