Is the non-practicing pedophile better than the rest of us?
Three rock climbers are preparing for an ascent of El Capitain, that glorious three thousand foot rock face in Yosemite National Park. Climber 1 is able of body and mind. Climber 2 however has only one arm. And climber 3 has acrophobia, a fear of heights. When the three successfully complete their ascent, the accolades for rock climbing prowess are showered on climbers 2 and 3.
“Climber 2, how did you do it with one arm?” a reporter asks.
“Because my friends gave me a hand.” he quips back.
“Climber 3, how did you overcome your fear of heights?”
“I decided it wasn’t relevant.” he smiles. “Acrophobia is an irrational fear of heights. But the fear when you’re ascending El Capitain is fully rational.”
This delightful little story (it was delightful, wasn’t it?) highlights an important fact that when two people undertake the same task, but one has a disadvantage, then when they both complete the task the one with the disadvantage is lauded over the one that lacked the disadvantage.
Now think not about three climbers but rather three suburban dads who are engaged in the equivalent of rock climbing: raising two kids and providing for a family. Dad 1, like climber 1, is perfectly normal. Dad 2 and Dad 3 however each have their own “handicap”. However these handicaps are not visible like climber 2. Rather, they are invisible like climber 3. Dad 2 has pedophilic tendencies. And Dad 3 occasionally has violent impulses to kill his children. Both Dad 2 and Dad 3 are horrified and disgusted by their impulses. And so Dad 2 and Dad 3 struggle to act appropriately day to day in circumstances where Dad 1 has no struggle at all.
Perhaps you remember Jeffrey Dahmer, the infamous Milwaukee serial killer and cannibal? He started out as a young man with the impulse to torture animals and with fantasies of killing people. And he progressed from there. It turned out after he was imprisoned that his own father admitted in an interview that he too had fantasies of killing people as a child but he had refused to give in to them. Don’t we laud Mr. Dahmer Sr. for his self restraint?
So like our admiration for the one armed and acrophobic climbers, don’t we laud the achievement in self-restraint of dads 1 and 2? But the consequence is a bit strange, isn’t it? Does this mean that the more bizarre and sickening the inclination of the agent, the more admiration we should have when that agent suppresses the inclination and carries out tasks that the rest of us consider to be merely mundane?
And what does this mean for Christ and his “struggle” with temptation? With what did he struggle exactly?
Tags: goodnss, morality, virtue
8 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Walter says:
Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 7:37pm
And what does this mean for Christ and his “struggle” with temptation? With what did he struggle exactly?
My personal belief is that Jesus was just a human being like me, so I assume that he would have struggled with the same temptations that every other person does. If Jesus was a sinless god-man, how could he have ever been tempted in the first place? Is it possible to tempt God into sinning? Surely not.
The temptation story comes from the synoptic gospels, which, in my opinion, affirm a lower Christology than the fourth gospel does–where the story is noticeably absent.
randal says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 2:04am
Walter, you might find value in my articles “Why Jesus was NOT ‘tempted’ (and why it matters)” and “Was Jesus Christ free to sin?”
Walter says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 2:08pm
Your view is that Jesus was tested but not tempted because Jesus is God, and God is not tempted by sin. That would be my view as well if I was a Trinitarian, which I am not. My own beliefs seem to range from English Deism to uber-liberal unitarianism depending on which day of the week it is.
randal says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 10:19pm
What are your reasons for being a unitarian deistic uber-liberal Englishman of sorts?
Walter says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 11:49pm
The short answer would be that I have been strongly influenced by the writings of Deists such as Thomas Paine.
I am not an atheist because I am persuaded by some of the arguments for “mere” theism and by other arguments critical of naturalism. I am sympathetic to the atheistic worldview, however, because I see little evidence of supernatural intervention on the behalf of believers in any particular world religion. Plainly put, the universe seems largely indifferent to our wants and desires whether we are a true believer in Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Thor or none at all.
As far as being a unitarian instead of a trinitarian, that would be because I consider the concept of a God with multiple personality disorder to be a little too bizarre, despite the fact that I was indoctrinated to believe in such a concept. Thom Stark used to have an excellent series of articles titled “Undivinizing Jesus” which laid out the case for a human Jesus quite effectively. Unfortunately, the articles no longer seem to exist in the blogosphere. There was recently a debate between a Christadelphian unitarian and a trinitarian over at the Parchment and Pen blog. I felt the unitarian had the better arguments.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/the-great-trinity-debate/
davidstarlingm says:
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 8:34pm
Walter, what would you say the difference (in your opinion) between Trinitarianism and Tritheism is?
Ray Ingles says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 1:44am
Reminds me of Douglas Gasking’s proof of the non-existence of God:
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
randal says:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 2:15am
It’s tongue firmly in cheek, but its not that funny. I prefer a simpler argument:
(1) If Abba sold more records than William Hung then Douglas Gasking is not as clever as Ray thinks.
(2) Abba sold more records than William Hung.
(3) Therefore …