West:
"Harm in the name of jesus is not deviancy as far as practitioners of the cult of Christ are concerned"
From my knowledge of this, the message of Christ was not one of harm but one of peace, and those that harm in the name of Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy.
But I'm not about to jump fully into the Christian corner as i do not consider it to be a perfect religion either. As a doctrine, I believe it has produced more good than harm in our world overall, but it has definately fallen short of ridding the world of wars, injustice and inequality, if that is what it was hoping to achieve. I would definately not say that it causes more of these conditions, as you are claiming insistently. But i would admit that it is easily corruptable and manipulated in the hands of wicked-minded and foolhardy individuals, which can give it the apparency of being a "bad" religion.
As for God, well i opine that He would probably view the religious institutions of man as "much of a muchness".

Donnie this is the difference between our opinions. I am saying the harm created by Christianity is not corruption of the “spirit” of Christianity as persecution and exclusionism is central to Christian nature. I will even go as far as saying the character of Jesus in the new testament is exclusionary and thus immoral and as the Christian mind through the belief of the bible – believe - in salvation that excludes non adherents to occult superstitions and rituals that makes the foundation of their beliefs persecutory.

As far as harm is concerned I don’t confine the definition to wars and waves of violence that the belief in the phantasmagoria of religion creates. I include the destruction of families which is a major problem especially with new age cults such as Pentecostals and evangelical movements. Harm is also in the corruption of politicians which let their beliefs in god interfere with democracy. Attempts to ban abortion is a good example of this sort of harm , banning gay marriage another. Other harms is in the organisation of social levels where we no longer see people as people valued by the arbitrary invention of morality which itself became into existence to give the believer a belief he is morally superior.

Bugsy , Philo makes the same mistake as most god apoligists. He is claiming in his rhetoric that the soul is an immortal magic entity with its own consciousness and somehow its kryptonite is the deviation of social rules and norms called morality and occult laws of the bible.

Yet when it comes to explaining it Philo discredits the soul by explaining something completely different , an atomic based structure to try and give it a little semblance of reality, but it was not what he claimed in the first place.

West,
"I will even go as far as saying the character of Jesus in the new testament is exclusionary and thus immoral"
I think you'd have to provide sufficient bible evidence to support that claim (without slanting either).

"Christian mind through the belief of the bible – believe - in salvation that excludes non adherents to occult superstitions and rituals"
Quite false actually, the Christian doctrine is that anyone can be "saved". It's not exclusive. It does require an effort on the individual to "repent" and live up to certain moral standards, which may be difficult for some, but they are not exclusionary. Superstitions and rituals are generally superfluous.

As for your claims of social harm, i think you'll find that views and voices on these various issues you mention are as widespread amongst the Christian denominations as they are in the general body politic. I reckon you need to start being more specific with your attacks rather than blaming "the whole bloody lot of 'em".

Donnie what do Christians believe happen to non-believers in the afterlife? This influences their treatment of 'others' in the real world.

Granted. However, the treatment of "others" based on this belief can fall either way.
One might take on the holier-than-thou, "i am saved but everyone else can go to hell" attitude which is exclusive.
Another might take on the "spread the word so that all my friends can join me in heaven" attitude which is inclusive.
So the difference in treatment lies not with the belief itself, but rather with what the individual chooses to do about it.

I actually find the second type the most irritating and offended when their "help" is refused or told that it won't be necessary. I wonder if that what makes the first type?