Generalisations

Something that bugs me no end, is when people generalise about Christianity.

I am having to constantly deal with people accusing "Christianity" of all sorts of crimes throughout history.

I have a problem with this for a couple of reasons.
1. Not everyone who claims the name of Christ is a Christian.
Many of the crimes done in the name of Christ (and there are plenty) have been done by men who use the name of Christ, but have no regard to the teachings of the Bible.
How can these men and women who ignore the Bible in the most basic of teachings be considered Christians?
There are so many different groups who claim the name, but the test of a true Christian is how they align with the Word of God.
By definition, these who use the name but go about killing (such as in the Crusades for instance) can not be used as a general template to condemn all Christians.
2. Not everyone who says they follow the teachings of the Bible, actually do. There are many people who twist various Bible texts right out of shape, in order that they can tell people to do what they want.
Some of these people are very convincing, very charismatic (not in a religious sense, but in a personality sense - although the charismatics have their issues as well), and due to their leadership abilities they can get people to follow them and to trust them. Follow them right into bankruptcy (while the "preacher" gets rich), follow them right into immorality, follow them right to death. There have pretty much always been this kind of charlatan, who takes advantage of people who are desperately reaching out for hope.
3. Then there are the false "Christian religions" which call themselves "Christian" but in fact teach stuff that is AGAINST the Bible, not in line with the Bible. The JW's, and the Mormons for instance both deny that Jesus is the God in the flesh, making Him instead a small g god, and a created being. This in spite of the fact that John 1 tells us that all things were made by Him (the Word, Jesus Christ). The SDA's add works to salvation, just as the Jews of Paul's day were doing. So also do the Catholics, who add in all sorts of unbiblical bit and pieces, such as making Mary a mediatrix in spite of the Bible telling us that Jesus is the only mediator, then also adding men - their priests - in as further mediators (what are they doing in the confessional if not acting as a mediator?). The Christadelphians join with the SDA's in some their theology, particularly with regard to soul sleep, another unbiblical twisting (And yes I have read the Christadelphian handbook, so I do know what they teach about this.) And there are plenty who teach that tongues and healing are signs of salvation and necessary for it, and others who talk about a "second blessing, and security by a second work of grace.

So generalisations, which are never really helpful, are a tool used by the opponents of Christianity to tar everyone with the same brush.
But you might be surprised to find that true Christians ALSO condemn such rubbish as many who claim the name spout.
In fact, for anyone to properly judge any Christian, it needs to be done by comparing what that person or group teaches against the Bible.

Now no man alive today is perfect, and we all make mistakes, but a genuine Christian will TRY to live by what the Bible says. And a genuine Christian church will stand on what the Bible says.

The only rider on this point is that some of the Bible is written as history, and some of the commands were given at specific times for a specific purpose - this means that those who say that we should go out and kill because God commanded it are just wrong.
They take a passage or verse out of context and are no better in their accusations than the false teacher who takes advantage of men.

The Bible, taken in its proper context is the yardstick, the rule, the template that every Christian, both individually and corporately (in his church) should follow and stand by.

Judge me not by those who falsely carry the name - judge me by the Words of God.