Even if theism is a failure, it's still superior to atheism

[Angrboda]

Mister Agenda: i also want no part of the "mainstream" approach to Christianity, so i understand people's disillusionment with the entire thing.  anyone can call himself a Christian, but this doesnt mean he is one and any message can come in the name of Christianity but that doesnt mean it's part of it.  though i use the name "Christian" too, i believe a distinction must be made between the title and one's actions, and this is recognized in the Christian world.  but the terms that people use go back and forth.  too many try to legitimize varying impotent intensities of action under the name of Christianity by creating additional names for them ("Angry Christian", "Lazy Christian", "Compromising Christian, etc") and this just creates confusion and gives Christianity a bad name.  but Jesus made it easier to identify his followers: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."  not by a title but by their actions.

i cant say that any person who commits an evil action isnt a follower of Christ.  but i do believe the name "Christian" should indeed be synonymous with harmlessness and truth, and that anyone who brings a message under this name who cannot abide by these should not be regarded.

my purpose for being here is not to try to persuade anyone to accept any actions they believe to be evil that were done by those that use the name, but only to try to be a proper witness for Jesus Christ, to encourage members here not to reject the message on their account, *and perhaps to offer some hope or spirtual understanding to anyone who still has any hope left in the doctrine.

I'm not sure I buy the theory underlying the passage in Matthew. As is commonly noted, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And a bad argument can have a true conclusion. And a bad person can do good acts. A potent example of this is the psychopath playing someone they want to take advantage of, or trying to pass in a society of normals. Someone like Joel Osteen may be tirelessly engaged in the lord's work, yet inwardly just a conman and a grifter who is using the ministry to his own benefit. And the reverse is true as well. Someone who is basically good can be given to incredible moral failures and acts. Someone who is not very bright may err frequently in applying moral principles in his life despite a resolute intention to do so. So, while by their fruits ye shall know them is a popular maxim, I think in it is too simplistic, overlooks the complex relation between character and intent, and fails to carve nature at here joints.

Beyond that is the whole question of who has the authority to assign whom what labels and on what basis. Unfortunately, these internecine squabbles between different kinds of Christians tend to take on a no true Scotsman flair. As far as I'm aware, Jesus' primary criterion for being a Christian was belief; all else seemed secondary -- a matter of the fine print of the contract.