Stockholm Syndrome with God

god With A Little G"God is not an arbitrary God that can play by His own rules, He answers to eternal law."Again, this is just another instance in which I find it inappropriate to use the uppercase G. The big G is reserved for beings that are truly omnipotent with infinite power. A big G - God can make 1 + 1 = 3.An LDS god can not make 1 + 1 = 3. Why? Well, as Con has pointed out, an LDS god (of which there can be many), is bound by "Eternal Law". We know from doctrine that intelligence and logic are indeed part of Eternal Law.This doesn't change the fact that You still can't escape from an LDS god. Captive, You still are.Eternal Law and Divine LawLet's start off by making the distinction between Eternal Law and Divine Law. “"Divine" laws are instituted by God to govern his creations and kingdoms and to prescribe behavior for his offspring.” “Some Latter-day Saints believe that "eternal" law is self-existent, unauthored law, which God himself honors and administers as a condition of his perfection and Godhood.” “Latter-day scriptures and other sources do not explicitly state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God.” http://eom.byu.edu... “...LDS teachings tend to emphasize the following characteristics: (1) the extent of the divine laws revealed to mankind may vary from dispensation to dispensation, according to the needs and conditions of mankind as God decrees; (2) they are given through and interpreted by his prophets; (3) they are relatively concise, but "gentle" or benevolent, given to promote the happiness he has designed for his children (TPJS, pp. 256-57); and (4) they are efficacious for mankind as God's harmony with eternal law was, and is, efficacious for him, and will bring to pass the exaltation of his righteous children.” http://eom.byu.edu... What This MeansNo scripture or doctrine has been revealed or authored that fully and accurately documents Eternal Law. There are bits and pieces that are sometimes explicitly stated, but most of the time we must infer what is Eternal Law.The above excerpts from the BYU Library does help us grasp the differences between the two though. The following summary clarifies what each law is.A god has no control over Eternal Law, which is immuatable and unchanging, and must abide by Eternal Law in order to maintain Godhood.Divine Law is created and controlled by a god and may change at a god's discretion.Therefore, all Divine Law, authored by a god, is also Eternally Lawful.Furthermore, I think the following can be reasonably inferred from the above.A Divine Law may re-iterate or be abstacted from Eternal Law.i.e. Eternal Law: "Don't mess with Free Agency."Divine Law: "Don't mess with Free Agency."Divine Law: "Don't kill other people, because that's messing with their Free Agency."Divine Law: "Don't rape other people if they don't want to be raped, even if it's not adultery, because that's messing with their Free Agency."*We shouldn't assume that Eternal Law is vague on every matter. It may very well be specific on some matters like physics. However, we also can not assume that the Divine Laws we currently know are *not abstracted from more broad Eternal Laws. For example, the Divine Law of Tithing.This Divine Law may very well be abstracted from a more general Eternal Law that simply states "Tithes must be collected.". The specifics of the collection amount, freuquency, and use of funds may not be described in Eternal Law. A matter such as this is then left up to a god to further define in Divine Law.If there are no specific values in Eternal Law to mirror, a god may author their own values.i.e.Divine Law is revealed in the early 1860s proclaiming Plural Marriage to be moral, only to have the moral value reversed in 1890.*This is consistent with Eternal Law because no moral value is assigned to the matter. Eternal Law must be silent on Plural and Non-Plural Marriage. If Eternal Law were to prescribe a moral value to either, a god could not author a Divine Law that contradics either.Unlike Eternal Law, Divine Law is not always immutable. Its how the LDS Church can get away with saying things like this;“...monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8 and Jacob 2:27, 30).”Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration 1, SummaryIf a Divine Law makes no difference in respect to Eternal Law then I would argue that it is indeed arbitrary since it can vary from dispensation to dispensation OR EVEN from god to god.Why It MattersCon argues that "the captor in the Stockholm equation MUST be deliberately abusing the captive's rights in some way or another" and I agree.However, Con insists that the way the LDS god treats His children is not abuse. Instead, it is a demonstration of love.Sure, the way the Father treats His children may be a demonstration of "love". However, this does not mean that abuse is not a valid part of a god's "love" for His children.We shouldn't let the emotionally charged words of "family" and "love" disguise the abusive behaviour that the Father demonstrates. The Father lets his children become afflicted by disease and disaster. The Father lets his children kill each other in war. The Father lets his children rape and be raped. The Father lets his children kill themselves in desperation. The Father lets his rich children exploit his poor children. This is textbook child abuse, and if the Father were a human the CPA would be on him like white on rice! “Child abuse is when a parent or caregiver, whether through action or failing to act, causes injury, death, emotional harm or risk of serious harm to a child. There are many forms of child maltreatment, including neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation and emotional abuse.” https://www.childhelp.org... ! Did you catch that? The key is, the Father is not a human. The Father is a god; nobody ever said that Eternal Laws are not different for humans and gods. “Latter-day scriptures state that "God would cease to be God" if he were to allow mercy to destroy justice, or justice to overpower mercy, or the plan of redemption to be fulfilled on unjust conditions (Alma 42:13).” http://eom.byu.edu...Given that all of a god's actions must be in accordance with Eternal Law, god's treatment of His Children must also be in accordance with Eternal Law. Is god the Father's behaviour consistent with Child Abuse? Yes.Is the Father a god? Yes.Must all gods be perfectly moral and in accordance with Eternal Law? Yes.Therefore, god the Father's Abuse of His Children is Moral and consequently Eternally Lawful.You see, as humans, we tend to associate harm with things that are Immoral. While this is often accurate, it is not always correct. Stop trying to assign human values to godly acts. CONVERSELY, just because a behaviour is morally correct does not change the reality of the behaviour itself. Abuse is abuse even if it is moral on a god's part. *If you wish to see the Father's abuse of his children as His "love" then that's on You. How that would makes any sense, I don't know, but that's just how people with Stockholm Syndrome think. *wink*The Negative Feelings are Real"Jesus said love everyone. Therefore, if done properly, a religious person would harbour no negative feelings towards those "police or other authorities" you speak about. "It doesn't matter that they were told not to.In reality, people do have negative feelings towards other moral authorties.ClosingCon's behaviour throughout this debate is consistent with Stockholm Syndrome. No matter how many times I remind Con that they have been abused, Con insists that it was just a god showing his love for his family.I'd also like to add that I nicely played along with Con's LDS version of god when it was easier not to.The basic argument still works for an Infinitely Powerful God.