You said, "A tree is judged by its fruits. (Luke 6:43-45)"...
Interesting you should quote that verse. Paul taught that some natural branches were broken off of the olive tree and wild branches were grafted in. This tree is representative of the Israel of God. Those who worship God in spirit and truth. Clearly there are people who worship in spirit and truth.
You said, "We have to judge the Bible not by its claim, but what it has done to mankind."...
Actually it is judged by its claim. It makes statements and people believe it or not. How people react to those statements is based on their inner compass (often directed by outside "forces"). For instance some people are willing to go to war for the claims of the bible (NT) and some people shun the idea of war all together because of the claims of the bible (NT). The bible doesn't say christians go into physical war and impose its claims on others nor does it say to shun physical war all together. The bible does say to care for the oppressed. A persons inner compass might lead them to join forces to liberate the oppressed or not. "The bible" hasn't led them to physical conflict, their inner compass has.
You said, "Your comments confirm what George Bernard Shaw said about the Bible: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”...
Again, some context would be helpful.
You said, "It is this very unique feature of Bible that gave rise to over 41000 warring sects within Christianity. God’s word should unite people, not divide them. “God is not a God of disorder”—1 Corinthians 14:33"...
It is your belief that there are 41000 "warring" sects within christianity. There might be 300 different Baptist associations and 1000 Anglican (I don't know the numbers this is just an example). None of them are warring. People are free to float from one denomination to another without fear of having to fight anyone or defend their faith or anything of the sort. Again you're saying things that are unfounded.
What led to the 41000 denominations is the fact that the early church leaders chose to "unhitch" themselves from a divinely inspired, clearly defined set of laws. The laws of God's kingdom. The laws that the King OF God's kingdom followed, taught and agreed with. The government will be on His shoulders! Being the Word of God, these laws were His words! If anyone says, "Jesus is my King" but shuns His torah/law how IS IT or IN WHAT WAY have they placed themselves under His authority? Isn't it more like, they've actually placed themselves under the authority of false teachers? Think about that. Also think about how "free" you are to disentange yourself from that mess. Count the cost of following Christ. Like the Jews in His day and Paul in particular, one has to consider all that extra biblical "so called knowledge", dross. One has to consider losing standing in the church, the possible scorn of peers and leaders alike. If Jesus sets you free, you ARE free indeed. Free from false doctrine that leads to sin instead of away from it AND free from the penalty of tresspassing the law (death) if you don't quite hit the mark that you're AIMING FOR.
Leaders and congregations started to behave like schools of fish. Each following their own lead. Of course, there is always talk of Holy Spirit guidance, but that's questionable. For instance, would the Holy Spirit inspire the RCC to go throughout the land and impose its doctrine with the blade of a sword? Would the Holy Spirit inspire "the father of the reformation", Martin Luther, to spew forth his sermon "The Jews and Their Lies"? There is no indication in scripture that this would come from the Spirit of Christ. In fact the opposite is indicated. The Hebrew people (named Israel) are the apple of God's eye on account of the patriarchs. Yes, He chastened them, but He chastens all those He loves...for their own good. Jesus never imposed Himself on anyone, He told His disciple to put away the sword. I provided two examples of people reading what "they mean" into the scriptures. Here's another:
1 Timothy 4:1-5. Institutionalized dogma says that one thing Paul was teaching here is that the food laws are done away with. That's not what he was teaching at all. He was a torah observant Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin and he said himself, he delighted in the law/torah of God.
4. Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
First of all, to a torah observant Israelite ALL CREATURES ARE NOT created to be food. All a person has to do is go to the OT and read "the word of God" to find out which creatures are "sanctified/set apart" to be received with thanksgiving. As it happens, there are some creatures that are not to be eaten because God said eating them would be an abomination. God doesn't use that particular word lightly, but in fact He used it several times in trying to get His point across about unclean food in particular. Secondly, a torah observant Israelite who delites in the law of God is not going to call any of the instructions contained therein, "doctrines of demons".
Now for some context: Paul's ministry included defending the faith, once for all delivered to the saints, from both "Jewish" believers who were (among other things) of the belief that a gentile had to be circumcised as a prerequisite to salvation. Some believing gentile ascetics were teaching that the flesh had to be mortified to please God. One should abstain from all physical pleasure which would definitely include the pleasures of marriage. Some believers (likely Jews) were so paranoid about the possibility that market food could have been sacrificed to idols that they were telling people don't eat any of that stuff. (He taught in another place that if you're invited to dine, just eat what is put in front of you, it will be sanctified by your prayer. (*note: that teaching is in the context of food sacrificed to idols...it's not about making unclean foods suddenly clean through your prayer. I mean, He sent His beloved Son to die for people breaking that law, it doesn't matter how fervently you pray over your pork ribs, He's not going to cave and decide that maybe He was hasty in saying that's an abomination). The teaching contained in that scripture of 1 Timothy is warning about these ones who were leading people away from the truth. God instituted marriage and it is honourable, it is not to be shunned as a means of "godliness" and food that was created to be eaten shouldn't be avoided, it should be received with thanksgiving. That is the truth, not what these others were teaching. You see how that scripture, viewed in context, doesn't mean what some people want it to mean? The apostle Peter was absolutely right when he said: 2 Peter 3:16. These men weren't "unstable" as in mentally unhinged, they didn't find stability for their doctrine in the torah, and they were teaching people in such a way that their doctrines had the effect of causing people to practice sin in their ignorance.
Anyway, schools of fish...that's what happens when people decide it's ok to unhitch themselves from law. Any set of "laws" that is so flexible that it can be molded by anyones hands isn't even a law, it's a suggestion. A law that one school of fish finds unsavory can be abandoned (or amended into oblivion) and on and on until instability is followed by some kind of destruction. It can happen in ancient Israel, the church and modern society. It doesn't just happen, it's a consequence of a particular action.