I do agree that many horrible things have been done in religious organizations, some trying to justify their acts even by twisting doctrine. But I don't think that those horrible things are a characteristic of religion. I think that that is a result of evil men, and being that majority of the population are relgious. You will see many acts evil, likely the majority, done by people who believe there is a God, but thier belief in God says nothing about the moral character of that person. So saying the crusades were the result of religion and that Christ's ministry ultimately led to bad things would be like blaming Darwin for Hitlers actions and that the foundational work he did on evolution are evil.

Reading many of your sentiments on religious leads me to beleive you see nothing good in them. That, if you had the power, would abolish all religion from the earth. I would hope that is not the case. I would hope that even if you don't agree with or believe in the religious views of others that you would try to see the good. Do we all have to believe the same thing to achieve harmony?

If nothing bad can be blamed on religion than how do you justify claiming the good from them? That's massively hypocritical. And don't even try to tell me Christians don't try to claim the good. Its all they ever talk about. If your religion has no effect on humanity then why the hell do we need it in the first place?

We don't all have to believe the same thing. But we do all have to believe that we should leave other people the fuck alone. A message which never seems to penetrate the think skulls of the religious.

So saying the crusades were the result of religion and that Christ's ministry ultimately led to bad things would be like blaming Darwin for Hitlers actions and that the foundational work he did on evolution are evil

.

Those are very different things, though.

That young carpenter of Nazareth, nor anything he had said, had anything to do with the crusades. I wouldn't know whether he was the son of God, though if one believes in the latter, he most probably was since according to that doctrine we all are, somehow.
What's certain is that Jesus was the first communist in the world, long before Marx and Engels. The reason why he was killed wasn't because he was the son of some god or because he preached some religion. There were literally thousands of prophets preaching more or less the same thing at that time.
The reason he was put to an end was that civil order had to be kept up when he started rabble-rousing the poor against the wealthy merchants and money-lenders, which were incidentially all jews. Though it wasn't the jews (as commonly alleged) who insisted on killing him, they already knew that nothing good would come from making a martyr. If you read through Nikodemus' accounts, you'll find that in fact, the jews spoke in his favour.

The crusades, on the other hand, were indeed a result of religion, but not of "God" or "God's will". They're a prime example of how evil religion is. Much similar to the present-time muslim hate-preachers who give islam such a nasty face, the crusades were a direct result of vicious clerics sending people to kill the innocent. The muslims had been living peacefully in Jerusalem for centuries, until self-declared holy people like Urban and Gregor decided that Jerusalem must be "freed" (in fact, it was free, by all means, until the crusaders arrived). If you kill enough muslims, God will forgive all your sins and your place in heaven is certain. Sounds familiar?

Hitler's genocide, as well as World War 2, and World War 1 before, was unavoidable, as it was staged, anticipated, and welcomed. Let's be clear: Millions of Hugenots and Jews have been dicriminated, hunted, killed, robbed, burned for centuries, and that wasn't in Germany. And this was considered a "good thing", nobody objected to that. Nobody wanted Hugenots or Roms in their neighbourhood, nor Jews (though no one objected against their money). The fascist rise was the best thing to happen: It gave a solution to "the problem", and someone else did the dirty work (so someone else would get the blame in case it went wrong), and there's a good reason for a just war -- war is always good for business.
England and France even happily sold out the Czechs in the Munich Agreement (knowing what would happen) and His Greatness Pope Pacelli sold the Church to Hitler. Churchill was the only one intelligent enough to know what would become of it, but nobody, in particular not Chamberlain wanted to hear it at that time. Daladier even mocked his fellow citizens for being stupid when he came back from signing the agreement (showing that he knew very well what he had just signed).
Nobody anticipated how far it would go and how terrible it would become, and afterwards everyone pretended being shocked. Everybody has always been against it, sure.

Not long (2-3 months?) ago, a French politician said that if the Germans had worked more thoroughly back then, we wouldn't have the problem with the Roms now. That statement was, unsurprisingly, not received too well, but the fact that someone dares to speak it out after 75 years is telling a lot about what people still think today.

Darwin's works are, although still not conclusively proven, of profound scientific quality, and at the very least, plausible. The Arian pureness shit in the Third Reich (tall, blonde, blue-eyed like Hitler himself or Göbbels or Göring, indeed...) was just utter nonsense, and if it hadn't been death to so many people, it would be a great thing to make fun of. There's absolutely no base to compare these two.

But, war needs an enemy, and someone with either a different religion or a slightly darker skin makes a good enemy. After all, it's important that people can immediately recognize their enemy. It helps if you don't have a job and the enemy is rich, too. First, it's much easier to despise the rich (wait, I said this had nothing to do with Jesus, but here we are right at Jesus...), and second, as a plus, you get to keep the money after killing them.

MODERATION NOTE:

Okay, Hitler and Nazis has now been mentioned, and the last few posts have been confrontational rather than providing cooperative discussion. You should all know what that means.

This has been getting away from the topic of "your personal religious experiences". Please keep it on topic.

My personal experience with religion is that they try to impose their views on my specifically and society generally and that I have had friends beaten or murdered by religious parents or religious authority figures.

How much more personal than "my good friend was murdered by his parents because he didn't believe in sky fairies" can you get? It seems pretty personal to me. Its also an experience and religious.

Perhaps you wanted to the topic to be "hallucinations or delusions you personally experienced that had something to do with, usually the christian, god"?