# Why should Christ be responsible for the crimes of Christians? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 9, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843 "2009-08-09T17:05:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/41 "2009-08-14T00:53:06Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > In my opinion, he _is_ responsible, but cannot be _held_ responsible for the unforseeable and unintended consequences of his actions. The second is a judgement of accountability, but the first is simply a statement of the chain of causality. So he’s responsible for the crimes of Christians in the same sense that a lack of nitrogen in the garden soil is responsible for my tomato plants’ poor performance this year? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/42 "2009-08-14T17:22:06Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Note, the OP says that for the purpose of this debate, we’re assuming he DID exist. (Whether or not he was divine doesn’t matter) You’re half right. For Christ to be blameworthy, he CANNOT be the incarnation of an omnipotent and sovereign deity, for such an entity is not accountable to anyone and probably not comprehensible by mortals anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/43 "2009-08-14T17:29:24Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > You’re half right. For Christ to be blameworthy, he CANNOT be the incarnation of an omnipotent and sovereign deity, for such an entity is not accountable to anyone and probably not comprehensible by mortals anyway. I disagree. If we are to say **anything** about an omnipotent and sovereign deity, we necessarily must phrase it in terms that we understand, with the caveat that our understanding is incomplete. How, otherwise, are we to distinguish between Nyarolathotep and Jesus? If there is such a thing as good and evil in the cosmos, then a deity may be judged by its standards, too. If good and evil just mean “like or unlike what the creator wants,” that’s a definition that becomes meaningless for doing the right thing, and is meaningful only in terms of toadying up to the great tyrant. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/44 "2009-08-14T17:57:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My position: people are responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of their choices. If Jesus really existed, and if he really said the things attributed to him (the second being the much bigger assumption by far), then possibly he could be held responsible for later crimes committed in his name–but he could similarly be held responsible for the mercy granted in his name, and for the kindness shown in his name. Everyone who saw caring for the sick as their divine calling is his responsibility as well, by that standard. > > But I’m not sure all those folks’ actions are foreseeable outcomes of Jesus’s choices. What things “attributed to him” are you referring to? What of Jesus’s “choices” are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/45 "2009-08-14T18:08:12Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > So he’s responsible for the crimes of Christians in the same sense that a lack of nitrogen in the garden soil is responsible for my tomato plants’ poor performance this year? To the degree that he cannot have been reasonably expected to foresee the outcome, yes. (Presumably we don’t expect your nitrogenless soil to foresee much.) Of course, if he actually _was_ a diety and able to make predictions of the future based on the actions of others (like, say, predicting when somebody would reach for more bread), then he _would_ have been responsible for every outcome that he knowingly caused, in the accountability sense of the word. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > You’re half right. For Christ to be blameworthy, he CANNOT be the incarnation of an omnipotent and sovereign deity, for such an entity is not accountable to anyone and probably not comprehensible by mortals anyway. I disagree as well, based on the fact that it’s nonsense that a omnipotent and sovereign deity cannot be considered accountable for its actions in the sense of having responsibility for them. There may be no way to _enforce_ consequences against them for the actions they do, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they weren’t responsible for what occured. (As for the tired old dodge of it not being comprehensible to mortals, that’s impossible for an omnipotent god. If the god can do anything, it can certainly explain itself comprehensibly.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/46 "2009-08-14T18:16:49Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > You’re half right. For Christ to be blameworthy, he CANNOT be the incarnation of an omnipotent and sovereign deity, for such an entity is not accountable to anyone and probably not comprehensible by mortals anyway. If he were the incarnation of a deity, he is very blameworthy, since he would know the consequences of his words and could have said something like “don’t kill those who don’t believe as you do, okay?” If he was just some guy spouting a philosophy, he can be excused for not appreciating every word would be pored over for thousands of years afterwards. Kind of like Latina judges making speeches. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/47 "2009-08-14T18:53:14Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > What things “attributed to him” are you referring to? > > What of Jesus’s “choices” are you referring to? All of 'em, I think–I’m not sure what you’re getting at with these questions. I’m making general statements about moral responsibility, not condemning or praising Jesus for anything particular. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/48 "2009-08-14T19:29:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If he were the incarnation of a deity, he is very blameworthy, since he would know the consequences of his words and could have said something like “don’t kill those who don’t believe as you do, okay?” One could just as easily argue that as God incarnate, he knew full well that this wouldn’t stop the people in question. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/49 "2009-08-14T19:32:26Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > One could just as easily argue that as God incarnate, he knew full well that this wouldn’t stop the people in question. Not even one of them? In any case, God seems to tell people all sorts of things to do which they ignore. Look at _Exodus._ ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/50 "2009-08-14T20:17:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Not even one of them? In any case, God seems to tell people all sorts of things to do which they ignore. Look at _Exodus._ Irrelevant. Some people ignored those commands, and some people obeyed them. The fact that some people ignored those commands doesn’t mean that God was wrong to utter them. It also means that those scenarios are entirely different from the one I was discussing – namely, a situation wherein God knew full well that these people would not obey no matter what. “Not even one of them?” you ask incredulously. That’s a legitimate question, but remember, you’re not the all-knowing God in question. Besides, I’d say that any fair-minded person would recognize that those killings are adequately covered under the command “Thou shalt not murder,” especially since there is absolutely no place where God condoned killing people merely because they held different theological views. (He did ordain the killing of the Amalekites and other hostile tribes, but this wasn’t merely because they differed on matters of doctrine. If that were the case, then Yahweh would have commanded the killing of every single Gentile nation… which he did not.) Moreover, even if we grant your objection, it’s entirely possible that – in a world where human free will exists – an all-knowing God would allow certain evil acts to continue for some ultimate purpose. This is not just empty speculation; after all, the very first book of the Bible records the story of Joseph, and how his slavery, suffering, and imprisonment were key to the ultimate survival of his nation. Even in modern times, we see that the nations that experience the greatest sufferings and persecutions are also the ones in which the greatest religious revivals take place. Personally, I have no problem believing that (again, in a world where human free will is permitted), God would allow certain evil acts to occur for some ultimate (and perhaps eternal and spiritual) purpose. “No way!” one might say. “Not at all possible!” I daresay that an all-knowing God might deem differently, though. “Well, if he’s all-powerful, then why doesn’t he just force people to do the right thing? After all, he can do anything!” This reflects a kindergarten-level understanding of what omnipotence means, though. Philosophers and theologicans do not interpret omnipotence to simply mean the ability to do anything whatsoever. Rather, it is regarded as the ability to do anything that is logically consistent and does not violate God’s character. God cannot logically _force_ someone to _freely_ repent, for example, or to _freely_ choose to obey him. What he can do is permit certain circumstances that would prompt that person to repent and obey, and this may indeed mean allowing certain evil acts to take place. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/51 "2009-08-14T21:16:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If he were the incarnation of a deity, he is very blameworthy, since he would know the consequences of his words and could have said something like “don’t kill those who don’t believe as you do, okay?” If he was just some guy spouting a philosophy, he can be excused for not appreciating every word would be pored over for thousands of years afterwards. > > Kind of like Latina judges making speeches. It makes no sense to call an omnipotent & sovereign deity “guilty” of anything, as such an entity is the maker of rules. Aren’t you glad no such being exists? And what has Sotomayor to dow ith anything? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/52 "2009-08-14T21:29:18Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > It makes no sense to call an omnipotent & sovereign deity “guilty” of anything, as such an entity is the maker of rules. Aren’t you glad no such being exists? > > And what has Sotomayor to dow ith anything? Technically guilty, of course not. Blameworthy, certainly. The guy is in his godly rights to drown all those babies in the flood - but if I ever go to heaven and meet him, and he actually did it, I’d punch him right in the snoot. So it’s really lucky for me he doesn’t exist. As for the other thing, say Jesus, who was just a guy, got pissed off at some rich guy who wouldn’t give him any spare change. So he makes a crack about getting a camel through the eye of a needle. He’d never guess people would be arguing about it later - just like Sotomayor probably never guessed something she said to inspire a bunch of young Latina women would be all over the news years later. So, no matter what Jesus said, I don’t blame him. How was he to know it would make a difference? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/53 "2009-08-14T21:39:05Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > It makes no sense to call an omnipotent & sovereign deity “guilty” of anything, as such an entity is the maker of rules. Aren’t you glad no such being exists? The term under discussion is “responsibility” - and while I myself divided it into “cause” and “guilt” types of responsibility, we’re still talking about responsibility, not whether he can be dragged off to jail. In fact, the word “responsible” doesn’t necessarily even have negative consequences. Jesus might be “guilty” of giving social care of the poor and disadvantaged a big kick in the pants. Would you say that he can’t be credited for that because he’s omnipotent? Of course not. The issue is whether he caused it, and if so, whether he did so on purpose or by accident. Omnipotence effects neither of those, regardless of whether you’re talking about a good or bad result. The only think that omnimaxness does to this question is it removes the possibility of unintended consequences. In other words, it _removes_ the defense of it being an accident we shouldn’t really blame him for. If God, or Jesus, was omniscient, then he _knowingly_ caused everything he caused, and would thus be ‘accountable’ in both senses of the word. Or “guilty”, if you prefer. Whichever. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/54 "2009-08-14T22:24:35Z")
I’ve often thought that if the historical Jesus could return and see what had been done in his name to his own people, the Jews, he would be horrified and would disown any and all connection to the Gentiles and would remind them that he was first and foremost a Jew and a devout Judaist. He would read with utter disbelief stuff like this, written by one of the most prominent and revered Christians in history: > [@](#): > > What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? > > First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom … > > Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. > > Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. > > Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. > > Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. > > Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. > > Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. > > [The Jews and Their Lies](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html) by Martin Luther And the ultimate fruit of all this hate - Auschwitz. No, Christ has no responsibility at all for the Christian religion or the crimes associated with it. I’m quite sure he would loathe and detest it for the sufferings it had inflicted on his brethren. ---
**Author:** ![TheMadHun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@TheMadHun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheMadHun)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/55 "2009-08-14T22:50:44Z")
“Why should Christ be responsible for the crimes of Christians?” If I recall correctly, he was responsible for the crimes of Jews, Romans, and others of his age, which contained only a dozen Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/56 "2009-08-14T23:27:25Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I’ve often thought that if the historical Jesus could return and see what had been done in his name to his own people, the Jews, he would be horrified and would disown any and all connection to the Gentiles and would remind them that he was first and foremost a Jew and a devout Judaist. Or, as Kahlil Gibran said, > [@Kahlil Gibran](#): > > Once every hundred years Jesus of Nazareth meets Jesus of the Christian in a garden among the hills of Lebanon. And they talk long; and each time Jesus of Nazareth goes away saying to Jesus of the Christian, “My friend, I fear we shall never, never agree.” ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/57 "2009-08-14T23:58:41Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > What I’m driving at is the idea that he’s not called the ‘Lamb of God’ for nothing. Biblically, I think the lamb is a symbol of sacrifice and atonement more than of peace. I’ve also encountered the idea that “lamb” was a colloquial expression for child, much as we use “kid,” so “the lamb of God” is simply “God’s kid,” although I believe that’s very much a minority interpretation. As to the OP, I think blaming the historical Jesus\* for all the evil Christians do makes as much sense as crediting him for all the good they do. What doesn’t make sense to me is doing one without the other. \*“Christ” is of course a religious title. If we’re assuming that he was a more-or-less ordinary man, it makes more sense to me to refer to him by a personal name. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/58 "2009-08-18T02:31:30Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > “Well, if he’s all-powerful, then why doesn’t he just force people to do the right thing? After all, he can do anything!” This reflects a kindergarten-level understanding of what omnipotence means, though. Philosophers and theologicans do not interpret omnipotence to simply mean the ability to do anything whatsoever. Rather, it is regarded as the ability to do anything that is logically consistent and does not violate God’s character. God cannot logically _force_ someone to _freely_ repent, for example, or to _freely_ choose to obey him. What he can do is permit certain circumstances that would prompt that person to repent and obey, and this may indeed mean allowing certain evil acts to take place. It’s handy that theologians can simply redefine their terms to eliminate the inconsistencies! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/59 "2009-08-18T16:51:58Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > It’s handy that theologians can simply redefine their terms to eliminate the inconsistencies! It’d be even handier if the redefinition addressed the problem. The argument: P1 “God can’t do logically impossible things” P2 “It’s logically impossible to force someone to freely repent or freely choose to obey” C3 “God must therefore allow certain evil acts to take place to permit certain circumstances that would prompt that person to repent and obey” fails on the point that it doesn’t establish what’s so great about “free” repentance or obedience. The argument could easily be flipped around and used as an argument that no omnimax god could be _capable_ of allowing free choice. (Not that we need to restart the POE argument in here - I just wanted to point out that the “kindergarten-level understanding” adhominem also wasn’t as solid a rebuttal as it might first appear.) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843/60 "2009-08-18T18:54:37Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > It’s handy that theologians can simply redefine their terms to eliminate the inconsistencies! You’re assuming that “omnipotent” was originally used as meaning “can do anything at all with no limitations whatsoever.” I have yet to see any such prior usage, so these accusations of “redefining” strike me as rather empty. Moreover, I think the Bible is quite up front about God not being able to violate his own character. For example, it says that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), nor can he change his moral character (Malachi 3:6). God can issue commands that are temporary and apply for a specific purpose or set of circumstances, but that’s quite a bit different from changing his innate character. Furthermore, this definition goes far beyond mere theology. Even an elementary application of philosophy should make it evident that omnipotence does not include the ability to violate one’s very being. For example, can God cease to be God? Or to use a more classic example, can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? The answer is no, because if omnipotence is simply the ability to do anything, then creating such a rock would violate his own omnipotence. People who want to take cheap shots at Christianity can dismiss such objections are mere “redefinition.” However, to do so is to fly in the face of both Christian teaching and elementary philosophy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-christ-be-responsible-for-the-crimes-of-christians/505843.md?page=4)