The Emerging World Religion

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

I did not say that we are all (believers and non-believers) had a relationship with God. That is being born-again is allowing himself to have an intimacy with Christ as I used “personal relationship.” There is an invitation of God through Jesus as He is saying “Follow Me” and “Come to Me.” God did not say all people in this world are already following Him in righteousness, and already saved.

Thanks

God didn't say anything.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why do you think the Jews didn't largely believe in resurrection? Becasue it conflicted with their idea of monotheism.

I don't think they believed in a physical resurrection, but a figurative resurrection.

 

[sojourner]

Does the order of the narratives in the gospel of John changes the statement of Jesus? Is Jesus inconsistent in what He is saying? Of course not.

Please allow me to explain.
John 3:16-21
16. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. (The offer of salvation is universal, but the acceptance is not universal)
17. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

The world should be saved from what?
1 Tim. 1:15
15. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

18. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (There is a judgment for those who did not believe Him yet God loved the world)]

What is that judgment?
19. "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
20. "For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21. "But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

That would mean man is still considered in the darkness if he does not believe in Jesus.

Rom. 5:8
8. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This would mean that because of God’s love, He sent Christ to died for us.

I’m not confused. It is very clear to me. I did not put additional meaning of the “world,” Those are the statement of Christ about the “world.”

John 12:46
46. "I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness.

John 16:33
33. "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

John 8:12
12. Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."

John 17:14-16
14. "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ( the world hated His word )
15. "I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Thanks

There's no need to reply to this point-by-point. You're so off base with your understanding of what I'm trying to explain that you can't even reply coherently. You're so off base in your understanding of what is meant by "the world," and by who wrote what and why they wrote it, that your apologetic simply is not cogent to the topic at hand.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

If a man is born to love, why Jesus would tell us that we should “love our enemies” as well as “love our neighbors”?
Did you see a child who was born to love strangers, or he is seeking to be love?

Based on the true context in the scriptures, God made the female to have a suitable helper for Adam.

Gen.2:18
18. Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

We are talking (here) about freedom. Who created man to become a presence (as a living being), and who give them free-will?

I think all these things belong to God. There will be no spirit for men if God did not create a living being. Therefore, that spirit make the man as a spiritual man.

I’m not confused. Peace is not created but belong to God for He is a God of peace.

What did I judged? I’m posting Scriptures and fully understand what I’m saying.

Spirit" is the thread that interconnects all things. As you describe them on behalf of typical, fundamentalist thinking, these things are not understood in the light of truth and cause a twisting and a stagnation. by Sojourner


How do you understand the “Spirit”? What is this to you?

Kindly expound what you’re saying before you criticized? It can’t be a help to our discussion.

I already proved it. It is just you did not believe in evil, scriptures and other facts.

Thanks

You are confused, and you haven't proved anything theologically. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what I'm arguing here.

 

[sojourner]

The salvation that God has offered to us is an act of God. There is no possibility that man can save his soul by himself to eternal life with God.

How come that our faith and following will not save us? It can’t save if a person does not follow what God want for him. There are a lot of people who like to follow his own way rather than God’s way/will. By Yoshua

It is so easy to say that you learn about theology, it is a word of mouth only. What I need from you is to prove to me the following :
1.) How salvation is not an act of God?
2.) How man can save himself to eternal life?
3.) How come our faith cannot save?
4.) How come following Jesus/God cannot save us?
5.) How come following our will can save himself?

I believe this would be a decent theological argument that you will start to answer.by Yoshua

If those questions cannot be answered, how can you jump on theological? If you think those are mistaken assumptions, then prove it in theology that it is an assumption and wrong.

Thanks

Simply repeating your last post doesn't magically make it any more of a coherent, theological argument. You can't even seem to figure out what i'm arguing, you're so confused here.

 

[Yoshua]

Let's be clear, I did not say the Word of God is not the Truth, I said the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, or authoritative. The Bible is not the Word of God in the manner you believe. But to your question what is the basis of what we is say is true or not? First of all, everything we say is relative, based upon our own subjective individual perspectives. My views are not absolute, and most certainly yours are not either. So there is no basis to make a claim otherwise.

Hi Windwalker,

The word of God is not a static collection of facts and truths, but rather it is living and dynamic and is heard and understood with the heart, not by our pathetic reasoning minds. By Windwalker

You just said before that the Word of God is not a static collection of facts and truth. Now, you said the Word of God is not the truth. The Bible is not authoritative.

But the Word of God is in the Bible. What is now the truth of the Word of God for you? Did you have a specific choice of which is the Word of God, and which is not the Word of God in the Bible or not at all?

If what we say is just relative as subjective individual perspective, then that would mean what you are saying to me now--do not have a truth. Nobody has carried a truth after all, they are all equal with their truth. I think this relative position of understanding the truth already killed the truth. If someone tells you that your neighbor’s house is burning, could you say it is because of “everything we say is relative.” Can you say “I will not believe you right now if our neighbor’s house is burning. I will do first my assignment in the office since my understanding of truth is relative.” Wow. What a “truth” is that?

For relative, is this limited only for individual perspective as giving your insights or comments?

Secondly however, is that my criteria for the validity of a point of view, which is its measure or degree of relative truth, is what fruit does it bear. "By their fruits you shall know them", says Jesus.

I think you cannot use "By their fruits you shall know them" because it is relative. You just said “everything we say is relative, based upon our own subjective individual perspectives. My views are not absolute, and most certainly yours are not either. So there is no basis to make a claim otherwise.” Now, why claim that there is a validity of truth from knowing them?? This contradicts the relativity as no absolute truth. Think about it.

So, even if you and I express truth differently, if we bear the same fruits of Love, then we are both right!

Then, how come that there is a basis of truth about love now? How come there is “both right” now?

This shows inconsistency and contradicted with your statement “everything we say is relative, based upon our own subjective individual perspectives. My views are not absolute, and most certainly yours are not either. So there is no basis to make a claim otherwise.” The concept of “relative” lead us not to claim anything as the truth. Isn't it?

If however, you insist on being right in how you think about something and conceptualize it in a certain set of doctrines, and deny others legitimacy to their points of view while disparaging and ignoring what fruits it bears in their lives, calling it "fake love" and so forth as you have, then you do yourself and Truth itself a grave disservice. You fail Love.

As I said (above) about inconsistency and contradiction with your concept of “relative,” this will resulted as choosing your own perspective because there is a truth in it. This is what I’ve observed from your answers.

The heart. The soul.

What do you mean by that? Is it what your heart dictates for a deity to be worshiped?

I believe there is a need to. You have said repeatedly it's not your views but God's. You're gravely mistaken about that.

Naturally, I believed in my view about God same as you—as what you think with your God.
Man is born not to love as I said before, it is through God only who give us love to accept and love others (but not compromising the truth).

So, babies hate? Oh my, what a frightening unreality you believe in.

Why? Have you seen a perfect man who is without fault since he was born? I think we should face the reality of what a man is.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Think about it. If you allow God in your life, are you not in fact following God?

Of course, allowing God in your life means you accepted Him to be part of your life. Therefore, to follow Him should be done.

The mystical experience is intimacy with God. All the rest you say, again, is all the right words, but what you take them to mean is far away from the understanding I hold. If you have intimacy with God, you understand his will, and you live in accord, in harmony with it because your will and God's will are one.

God’s will and our will become one if we allow God to be the controller, but before that, there should be repentance and desires to commit and surrender his life to God by obeying Him.

So, based upon your bad logic and misinformation you ignore our direct words to you? You place your ideas above truth, above the words of others? That's your whole problem, I'm afraid. It's arrogance.

Actually, I’m not ignoring your words, this is why I answered. I just don’t agree with the way of seeking mystical experiences. Many have done their own effort by seeking supernatural power, authority, and capability to discern things in supernatural which commonly a normal man cannot do. That is not arrogance, but just repeating what the standard of truth with the Word of God as my basis.

So, if an eagle has feathers, and a duck has feathers, eagles are ducks?

No. It is not that way. Duck is still a duck that has feathers like eagle, duck cannot become an eagle that can soar and fly high in the sky.

And all mystical experience is from God.

Of course, He can give that experience if He need to. No need to seek and worry about that.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

If they know God, then they know God. Only fools who do not know God mistake the devil for God, such as those who said Jesus did what he did by the power of the devil. To which Jesus responded an evil tree cannot produce good fruit. You make the same error as those Jesus rebuked. You make the same error in all your judgments of others.

Windwalker,

Your statement that “If they know God, then they know God” is like a piece of pie that can be easily swallowed. The reality is—it is not that so easy. There are so many people who mistakened that their God is the God who created the heaven and earth. Many will call with their God, the critical question here is: how they will know that their God is the true God??

The notion that there is no evil, and no evil exist is purely a deception that fooled many. That lie is logically to deceive people by camouflaging in non-identity and non-existence concept. How can people will believe in the evil existence if they personally were fed with lies. Therefore, they will completely submerged to a wrong knowledge about evil. People will definitely be ignorant about evil.

John 8:44
44. "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies.

2 Cor. 11:14
14. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Surely an evil tree cannot produce good fruit, but how will you know that it is the evil tree? How will you detect and traced that an evil tree camouflaged itself to produce like good fruit but his real identity is not the good fruit? I believed this will bring more clearer what is evil and what is not. If someone claimed that he is bearing a good fruit, would you believe that he is really a good fruit??

Jesus also mentioned about light and darkness, aside from an evil tree/good fruit example. He casts out the evil one. That is reality.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Um, yes I do. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are very high it is a duck.

Are you aware that there are so many ducks who quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck?

Chances are you cannot see the internal but the external. This is something that I believe needing discernment with the word of God. This is what I’m (now) saying to “upgrade our thinking” rather than just what you just see and heard from your senses.

Sure, the Christian cult I was in discussed cult-awareness topics too pointing fingers at everyone else, but strangely enough seemed to exclude themselves from the list!

Did I say that you’re a cult? Actually, you started to point me as a cult. You started it.

Ok, whatever. Yes, and I'm sure Captain Hook may have had something to do with it too somewhere originating in Neverland. Remember, I don't believe in the mythic stories as factual?

You believed that “Jesus responded an evil tree cannot produce good fruit” and now you don’t believe Jesus cast out evil one, and prayed that His disciples be protected from the evil one?? how come?

That's only one flavor of cults. Don't think that they have to have that individual prophet with a vision to qualify as a cult.

Of course, the one who gave them authority and power has a vision to deceive many.

Hmmmm...... okay........ getting much warmer now.... Let's add to that exclusionary isolationist practices, everyone but themselves have the truth, on a mission to disprove everyone, setting themselves apart as the in-group and all others as lost, under the deception of Satan, fear based doctrines making people afraid demons will steal their souls if they stray from their truths they teach...... any of this sounding familiar?

What you just said about stealing souls is a reality and not a myth. They just waited for someone who they may devour. This is the reason why Jesus prayed His disciples to be protected from the evil one. This is why Paul told us to wear the armor of God. They are both consistent with their experiences about evil.

1 Peter 5:8-9
8. Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
9. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.

Yep. Us versus Them. Literalist, Lost versus Saved, and so forth. Very, very polarized worldview: very black and white. Have you demonstrated anything to the contrary in our discussions? Any openness to my or other's points of view?

What do you mean? I’m already open to your point of views. I listen to you, read your post, commented, share, give my views, and stay with you in this forum.

As is the deliverance groups. They're all cut from the same cultic cloth.

No. This is why spiritual discernment with the word of God is needed here. How can you know them if you don’t know anything about the warnings and reminders of Paul and Jesus? If I trash their words, where could I get the information as my guide to detect a deceitful practice?

It could be just calling any spirit guides or any entity that will assist you. If we will do that, I’m 100% sure somebody will respond to your calling. But watch out of who you are calling.

So, because the witch doctors use blue holy water instead of pink holy water they are not true witch doctors?

No. I firmly believed that this is not the way of assessing things regarding the holy water. The approach for this is by the question : Should there be a holy water? If we can answer this question and find the truth about it, we will draw nearer to the truth.

You certainly do follow doctrines of man.

How come?

Which are all, 100%, interpretations of men. Period.

A devout followers are surely following 100% authority in all what their leader is saying. As I said before, interpretation has its standard.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Why do you think the Jews didn't largely believe in resurrection? Becasue it conflicted with their idea of monotheism.

Hi Sojourner,

Yes. I know. It is because they don’t believe the Messiah is the Son of God either. Therefore, they will not believe that He will be raised. Their belief was nailed in the Old Testament preferably the Torah.

Anyway, why do we refer to the Jews. Are you a Jew?

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Simply repeating your last post doesn't magically make it any more of a coherent, theological argument. You can't even seem to figure out what i'm arguing, you're so confused here.

I posted it to make it as my guide, so I will not forget where I started, as well as for the readers to know where we are going.

You may tell me where and what are the messages that you think I’m confuse with.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

You are confused, and you haven't proved anything theologically. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what I'm arguing here.

I’m asking you some questions for you to answer. Haven't heard from you.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

There's no need to reply to this point-by-point. You're so off base with your understanding of what I'm trying to explain that you can't even reply coherently. You're so off base in your understanding of what is meant by "the world," and by who wrote what and why they wrote it, that your apologetic simply is not cogent to the topic at hand.

Sojourner,

What should I do to explain it to you? By my own words which I don’t have a basis? It is better if you can give your idea about “world”? Can you explain to me your basis about the world as not conquered or overcome? What is the meaning of the "world" to you?

I don’t think anybody will read those passages unclear to them. It is very self-understandable in its literal sense. You may ask if you want to clarify something.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

The word of God is not a static collection of facts and truths, but rather it is living and dynamic and is heard and understood with the heart, not by our pathetic reasoning minds. By Windwalker

You just said before that the Word of God is not a static collection of facts and truth. Now, you said the Word of God is not the truth. The Bible is not authoritative.

The Word of God is Truth itself. How we interpret Truth itself all become relative truths to all of us. They are relative to how we understand things. The Bible expresses Truth in relative terms, and we interpret those relative truths in our own relative contexts. Therefore none of those are direct, and therefore are not Authoritative. Neither you, nor I, nor any author of scriptural texts can lay claim to Absolute Authority. If anyone does, they are deluded.

But the Word of God is in the Bible.

The Word of God is in everything. Why limit it to a single book? That seems idolatrous.

What is now the truth of the Word of God for you? Did you have a specific choice of which is the Word of God, and which is not the Word of God in the Bible or not at all?

Everything is the Word of God. I've mentioned this to you multiple times. None of it is Authoritative in an absolute sense, inasmuch as all things pass through our relative interpretive filters. For anyone to claim their beliefs or views are Absolute, is pure arrogance.

If what we say is just relative as subjective individual perspective, then that would mean what you are saying to me now--do not have a truth.

No it doesn't mean that. There are relative degrees of truth, some better than other, but none absolute. What I am saying indeed has truth to it. You can't just make anything you want up out of thin air without any basis in reality whatsoever. It's not a black and white equation. It's not either 100% true, or 100% false. Things are most definitely partially true the majority of the time. This is something you struggle with in your understanding of reality.

Nobody has carried a truth after all, they are all equal with their truth.

No they aren't. I've never claimed that, and I reject that view. It is only the extreme interpretations of relativism that believes that, and there are inherent flaws in that point of view that leaves us with nothing to work with. It's a point of view I do not accept.

For relative, is this limited only for individual perspective as giving your insights or comments?

Though all truths are relative, some are in fact better points of views that others. For instance, it is not valid to say it's your opion that evolution doesn't happen. You need to support your point of view with facts. Those who are specialists in the fields of science for instance have a vastly more informed and better opinion that you do. But they too need to be cautious to not speak in absolutes. Speak in degrees of certitude, but with a relative degree of modesty. You can also speak with confidence in saying there is a very high degree of certitude that those who deny evolution or the age of the earth, or geological formations as science explains them are wrong. It is fine to say with a high degree of certitude your prerational beliefs are not scientifically valid.

I think you cannot use "By their fruits you shall know them" because it is relative. You just said “everything we say is relative, based upon our own subjective individual perspectives. My views are not absolute, and most certainly yours are not either. So there is no basis to make a claim otherwise.” Now, why claim that there is a validity of truth from knowing them?? This contradicts the relativity as no absolute truth. Think about it.

Not at all. Even though saying tomatoes are better than grapes in solely a subjective opinion, to say throwing up all day long is a sign of sickness is well-accepted truth. There is very, very high confidence that spewing out all the food you eat is detrimental to your health if it continues for too many days.

Therefore, if the things you believe in and practice makes you a judgemental, self-righteous or otherwise unhealthy human being then it is safe to say anyone can take the axiom "by their fruits you shall know them," as a valid way to judge the truth of what they are doing. I think "by their fruits you shall know them" is in fact more valid a judge of the truth value of beliefs than your silly criteria that it doesn't match how you believe. Our relative degree of certitude this is a valid truth claim is extremely high.

Then, how come that there is a basis of truth about love now? How come there is “both right” now?

There is a basis of truth about Love, because it's fruits are a demonstration of its validity claim as the Way.

As I said (above) about inconsistency and contradiction with your concept of “relative,” this will resulted as choosing your own perspective because there is a truth in it. This is what I’ve observed from your answers.

There is no contradiction in what I claim. There is instead an error in your understanding and subsequently and invalid argument you make based upon that error of in own thinking.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

Yes. I know. It is because they don’t believe the Messiah is the Son of God either. Therefore, they will not believe that He will be raised. Their belief was nailed in the Old Testament preferably the Torah.

Anyway, why do we refer to the Jews. Are you a Jew?

Thanks

Because Judaism (and its attendant religious ideas) forms the basis for Christianity. Therefore, for Jesus to have effected resurrection, he would have to be God.

 

[sojourner]

I posted it to make it as my guide, so I will not forget where I started, as well as for the readers to know where we are going.

You may tell me where and what are the messages that you think I’m confuse with.

Thanks

You're so far confused about everything we've discussed.

 

[sojourner]

I’m asking you some questions for you to answer. Haven't heard from you.

Thanks

You're (again) asking the wrong questions. You're unlikely to get an answer to a wrong question.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner,

What should I do to explain it to you? By my own words which I don’t have a basis? It is better if you can give your idea about “world”? Can you explain to me your basis about the world as not conquered or overcome? What is the meaning of the "world" to you?

I don’t think anybody will read those passages unclear to them. It is very self-understandable in its literal sense. You may ask if you want to clarify something.

Thanks

"World" isn't a literal reference. It's metaphoric.

 

[Windwalker]

What do you mean by that? Is it what your heart dictates for a deity to be worshiped?

You asked the question, "How do you know the living Spirit of God as the Truth? What is your basis?". To which I answered the heart and the soul are. I really don't get what this question in response is getting at. I'm not sure how "dictates a deity to be worshiped" relates to this. You asked how I know that something I experience is Truth. The answer is it is known through your heart and soul. It's just something you know.

Naturally, I believed in my view about God same as you—as what you think with your God.

No, not the same as me. The basis of my views is not the same as yours. It's vastly different, not only intellectually but experientially as well. Plus I hold them with an opened hand and an opened mind, not a closed fist and closed mind as you are.

Man is born not to love as I said before, it is through God only who give us love to accept and love others (but not compromising the truth).

Why? Have you seen a perfect man who is without fault since he was born? I think we should face the reality of what a man is.

Again, all or nothing, black or white, 100% pure or 100% polluted. What is wrong with you?

 

[Yoshua]

The Word of God is Truth itself. How we interpret Truth itself all become relative truths to all of us. They are relative to how we understand things. The Bible expresses Truth in relative terms, and we interpret those relative truths in our own relative contexts. Therefore none of those are direct, and therefore are not Authoritative. Neither you, nor I, nor any author of scriptural texts can lay claim to Absolute Authority. If anyone does, they are deluded.

Hi Windwalker,

That is what the common thinking of the acceptance of truth by the emerging movement. Imagine, you're saying that the Bible expresses Truth, but in relative term, and by those interpretation, how we understand things becomes the truth. If that would be the case, man can have their own truth based on their perspective. None of the perspective is coming from God because no authority or direct from God. Therefore, your claim of the Spirit of truth cannot be the Spirit of truth that came from God because of the relative concept. It is like a person can say “I think Jesus is not the way, the truth and the life” because that is my interpretation--as my context and perspective. Everyone may have their own interpretation. Is that kind of interpretation that you are implying?

Making truth as relative means with the following:
1. There is no authority of God’s word.
2. Everybody can make his own interpretation as their truth.
3. The confession of Jesus Christ in John 14:6 can be changed.
4. Man is the authority rather than God because of his expression to truth is relative.
5. Man is above God, since he does not acknowledge that there is authority or direct from God.
6. The Bible is not to be followed as the Word of God because of non-authority. Other religious writings is also the word of God.

I can’t imagine how Christ’s disciples argue with Jesus telling Him that they have their own truth. It’s kind of something not logical anymore.

The Word of God is in everything. Why limit it to a single book? That seems idolatrous.

Hmm. This is another one. The Word of God is in everything, and not solely the Bible. Since there is no absolute truth, there is no wonder why there would be an access of a united religion that would downgrade and trash the gospel of Christ.

Everything is the Word of God. I've mentioned this to you multiple times. None of it is Authoritative in an absolute sense, inasmuch as all things pass through our relative interpretive filters. For anyone to claim their beliefs or views are Absolute, is pure arrogance.

Therefore, when Jesus said, “deny yourself carry your own cross and follow me” is arrogance?

No it doesn't mean that. There are relative degrees of truth, some better than other, but none absolute. What I am saying indeed has truth to it. You can't just make anything you want up out of thin air without any basis in reality whatsoever. It's not a black and white equation. It's not either 100% true, or 100% false. Things are most definitely partially true the majority of the time. This is something you struggle with in your understanding of reality.

Then, if that is the case of truth as no absolute truth, it’s the same understanding of relative truth. It does not change anything. If I say there God, it is not 100% truth, man created by God, still not 100% truth. Therefore, there is a doubt in all truths even for God who is above our knowledge.

Though all truths are relative, some are in fact better points of views that others. For instance, it is not valid to say it's your opion that evolution doesn't happen. You need to support your point of view with facts. Those who are specialists in the fields of science for instance have a vastly more informed and better opinion that you do. But they too need to be cautious to not speak in absolutes. Speak in degrees of certitude, but with a relative degree of modesty. You can also speak with confidence in saying there is a very high degree of certitude that those who deny evolution or the age of the earth, or geological formations as science explains them are wrong. It is fine to say with a high degree of certitude your prerational beliefs are not scientifically valid.

This is why I used the Scriptures as the support to my point of view, and it is not that easy to tell them that it is the evidence if the one you’re talking to does not believe the Scripture--as the Word of God. This is how important in having a basis. Denying the basis like the Bible can be still prove by fact, but sometimes by logic itself.

Not at all. Even though saying tomatoes are better than grapes in solely a subjective opinion, to say throwing up all day long is a sign of sickness is well-accepted truth. There is very, very high confidence that spewing out all the food you eat is detrimental to your health if it continues for too many days.

Therefore, if the things you believe in and practice makes you a judgemental, self-righteous or otherwise unhealthy human being then it is safe to say anyone can take the axiom "by their fruits you shall know them," as a valid way to judge the truth of what they are doing. I think "by their fruits you shall know them" is in fact more valid a judge of the truth value of beliefs than your silly criteria that it doesn't match how you believe. Our relative degree of certitude this is a valid truth claim is extremely high.

Matt.7:15-21
15. "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
17. "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20. "So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.

Knowing them by their fruits refers to the false prophets/false teachings. In v.21, they will be recognized if they did the will of the Father. This is how a Scripture turned into a different context by their own relative context, without considering how they get the phrase and paste it to become a message.

If there are false teachings, therefore you will know them as bad fruit. Then, how will you know if their teachings are false?

With this example, how can you conclude to say that “we interpret those relative truths in our own relative contexts” if in the first place, the phrase is (obviously) taken out of context??

Thanks