Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Pokedude12

    + friends - friends
    546 link karma
    33,049 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Morality is external to religion/god/holy book Pokedude12 1 points ago in DebateReligion

    I've already made my case as to why moral code as passed down from bygone eras isn't inherently objective, both (regarding murder as the prime example) in the contradictory orders made by God and in the change in behavior people have made over time.

    I'd like to further address an argument you'd made to OP in another comment:

    If morality cant come from God well then where can it come from because if you leave it on people then people will do as they please according to what they think is right at that moment of time. And if this is the case then we dont need to discuss morality since we cant control it as morality will just be based on the practices of that particular time.

    You are suggesting that people operate primarily on whimsy here. You are also making a case for special pleading, because as it is, even if God were an objective source of morality, people are still acting according to whim and not a strong moral foundation, if your argument is to be taken seriously, especially considering you'd made note of actual changes in this world potentially leading down a slippery slope.

    And I would like to argue that one's moral foundation is stronger than what you'd suggest, precisely because of how humanity's morals have been demonstrated to change, as seen with the example on murder. We as humans are more than our instincts and can control our morals by examining and battling them until they've been refined into something stronger.

    I have demonstrated my claim by using murder as an example, and I would like you to start using demonstrable examples as well over the conjecture you've been using. "But what if" is not a strong argument.

    [–] Morality is external to religion/god/holy book Pokedude12 1 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago) in DebateReligion

    The critical flaw in your argument is that we have an example where murder is lessened in the long term--even among the religious, there are fewer people who would kill for their faith. Because of this, we do have a precedent where the paradigms have changed to what we could consider better, even against the rigid teachings of bygone eras.

    And yes, if people grow up with learning to commit actions others consider bad, then they'll regard those as right. However, I would find this argument to be a further strike against the foundation of your argument, because if morality is indeed rigid and firm and humans have morality innately ingrained in them by God, then people who commit atrocities for the sake of doing so would not delight in them, but instead find them abhorrent as well, even with respect to the view that humanity must seek salvation.

    If people don't believe, then yes, they may as well do as they please, but I would think with the above example (with the change regarding murder) that what they please isn't what you are insinuating.

    Addendum: In regards to LGBT, I believe that the argument for its inclusion is innately stronger than those favoring bestiality, rape, and so on. Would I need to explain the difference in context between LGBT and the others or not, or do you already know what I'm referring to? If I have to, I can elaborate, but I'd honestly hope that it wouldn't be necessary

    [–] Morality is external to religion/god/holy book Pokedude12 2 points ago in DebateReligion

    It might not be an answer satisfactory to you, but yes, ultimately, given that there is no objective moral source, we have to decide for ourselves just what exactly is right or wrong.

    To that end, it should be noted that specific values are ingrained into us from childhood, whether it's by parents or teachers or even friends. Those values become the morals or ethics we acquire at the outset, things that become more defined or even outright changed as we age and interact. To further add, we have many different cultures across the world with different values, further corroding the concept of an absolute moral system. Each person's morals are challenged and either evolve or degenerate with each encounter, and each person contributes some part to an ever-changing tide of moral outlook.

    As an example, we see values changing to this day, even among the religious. The Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades are regarded as largely slaughter, AFAIK, meant to put down heretics, but Christians today don't suggest the murder of such people, right? We also see similar with more tolerance--and even acceptance in this day and age--for LGBT and voting rights for women and ethnic minorities. While this world isn't perfect, there has been change in the world's paradigms in just these things alone, suggesting that morality isn't as concrete as had been suspected.

    To tackle the case of advocating murder specifically though, a more sincere approach would be to argue in the case of self-defense. If one were crippled by an assailant and had but a moment to either fight back or take an otherwise lethal blow, most would suggest that defending oneself should be prioritized over being killed, even when murder is commonly seen as wrong. Here, we still have our priority in suggesting that murder be avoided, but we acknowledge that not all cases permit that without death. It's a very basic example, but it should be sufficient for the time being.

    Another response to the challenge of murder itself is, say, in the Christian text, there are a number of times where God is said to have committed genocide or to have ordered his followers to do just that, despite that same text ordering that people should not kill. That same order has been noted to be used as an argument against the use of suicide or euthanasia in other variations of the religion, despite other exceptions having already been made. Because of this, it can be assumed that there are specific contexts to these actions, some of which people find to be insufficient for or even proof against absolute moral authority.

    To sum, we get our morals from the people around us, as children. Then as we grow and meet others, our morals become more defined and fluid. We see this with how history has handled certain topics compared to how we would handle them today, even from those who make claims for a rigid moral truth. If morality were absolute, we would not see such changes over the course of history.

    [–] Questions & Help Thread Pokedude12 1 points ago in ShinyPokemon

    Ah, VC games need to run through Poke Transporter. As a heads up, AFAIK, once they're in, they can be sent only to gen 7.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 1 points ago in DebateReligion

    While that may be true for some, I don't think that's a fair view to use on the topic in itself, because on the same coin, it can also be said that followers who've been indoctrinated will often try interpreting good in things that would otherwise be seen as evil.

    Because of this, I don't think that part of your argument is suitable for debate. It's dismissive in a way that doesn't provide a constructive basis for elaboration. I feel that may be why people have downvoted you as so.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 1 points ago in DebateReligion

    As an aside I should mention that within Judaism what is literal and what is figurative in Job is a frequently debated subject. There were apparently at least some Rabbis dating back 2000 years ago who believe Job never existed at all.

    I'm not going to lie, it's actually pretty comforting to know that this conversation has happened before and is still a strong topic to this day, that it's not just a waste of time to take this route in hashing out the message and theme. For good reason too, as the meaning of the story is flipped on its head when the two are taken not only separately, but also as being opposed to each other.

    I do want to make note though, that based on the means you described in determining which is parable and which is the story, it is possible to find the poetry as the parable instead, in part to the loftiness of its tone and its verbose use of dialogue. That being said, I'm in no position to be able to argue for or against that.

    God's argument: Right. It's fair to read it as people trying to fit God into their perspectives than the other way around, then their coming up short compared to his expanse, the scale he operates on. I do think we're just going to have to disagree though; I just can't find the way God opened that argument to be palatable for his character, not as a demonstration thereof, but as something interpreted from his means of interjecting.

    The opening: For 1 and 2, I understand your interpretation of the meaning. If we don't have that, then people could argue for doing good solely for the reward it brings, rather than for goodness itself, and standing firm despite all odds is indeed an ultimate test of faith. But again, I just feel that we're going to have to disagree, if because of the means of elaborating on that. The prose elaborates on God's character in a way that, as you'd noted, is wholly unflattering and vile and even contrary compared to other parts of the text. With that said, I can understand rolling with this as an interpretation to be battled precisely because of that.

    Finishing thoughts: As I've stated several times here though and as I'm sure this has crossed your mind as well, I think we've basically completed our interpretations and arguments and just can't come to the same conclusion, regardless of whether we take the two segments together or as contrasts. I do have to say though, I did enjoy this discussion, and I've learned a bit on regarding the text as individual pieces that can be pitted for the sake of opening further discussion. That alone opens another dimension of debate for me to comprehend and utilize as an asset, so thank you for bearing and debating with me.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 3 points ago in DebateReligion

    Forewarning, but apologies for the absurdly long response. I've tried differentiating between topics by opening each new section with colons in the first few words, however, and my next response should be shorter once we get settled on the route of the argument, assuming we continue further.

    Poetic reading: Aaah, okay. I need to differentiate between the tones of the prose and the poetry segments. The word choice was fitted to match the tone, rather than being the thing to establish it. All right, sorry about that, and thanks for the elaboration.

    Prose vs poetry: I will say though, juxtapositioning the prose and poetry as a sort of... duality(?) of perspectives is an... interesting take. If the poetry in itself is built as a challenge to the setting the prose has established, it provides more interactivity from God than the bystander figure he's portrayed as in the prose, which leads to further development and more complex scenarios.

    That being said, I feel like I'm more looking at it more as literature than, well, a God-breathed text. In addition, I do want to also ask how you'd come to the conclusion of which part of the text is to be literal and which is to be figurative, as the method by which you differentiate these things is the foundation of arguing on this route, I feel. In particular, I want to know if we can assume the conversation between God and Satan had occurred and whether or not Job's family and servants were murdered, as the only requirement (AFAIK) is that Job suffer some vague thing, starting from Job 3. Lastly, I want to know to what degree we can take the core message of God's segment at the end to be essential to the argument, as I'll note two paragraphs down at the end.

    Scale and comprehension: Before I try to challenge your point, I do want to note that there is merit in the claim as a concept on its own. If humans can't fully comprehend humans, especially from other cultures, then it's fair to assume that humans would have an even harder time comprehending something alien, let alone something that isn't even material. In that sense, comprehending something like God would be unreasonable as a whole. Believe me--I understood that part in the last comment.

    However, the point I want to make against it is that, even if the text altogether were figurative, there are a number of times where the message or theme laid out can be contrary to others or that the means of describing the message stands against the theme in itself. In my last comment, it was the contrary behavior between the God of the prose and the God of the poetry combined. If I were to take the poetry alone though, it would still be similar though: what God has displayed was his might and knowledge, rather than his character. We can at least agree that the general topic was built on works--or even just trivia, under a more unflattering light--rather than morality or wisdom or what-have-you, right? As well as that initial bit where God demands that his opposition step up and correct him? I don't think it's quite fair for you to say I'm overblowing God's statements on one hand while you use Job's response word-for-word on the other. I would like to at least use a summary of God's argument or claims in my responses.

    At the same time though, I believe this is just going to be a matter of a difference in opinion between us. I can see your perspective, which is certainly easier to agree to under the assumption that Job is actually two tales, but ultimately, I don't agree with it.

    Friends: Yeah, God's telling them off isn't a deal breaker on its own. Even in the case where I accuse God of having ill intent, it doesn't change the fact that the friends were being shits to Job as time went on and bringing more grief than was necessary.

    The opening: I do see where it's possible to find a contradiction in God's behavior between the prose and the poetry, as noted above. Ultimately though, I don't think I have a satisfactory response on his motive on the assumption that the two parts are actually one. The only thing that can be read with certainty is the what: God recommended and encouraged Satan to destroy Job's life, even including murdering his kin and servants. After the dialogue between the men, God stepped in and made note of his own works, with the caveat that none may challenge him unless they're equally capable. Altogether, it paints a frankly bleak image, precisely because human lives have been toyed with and tossed aside by a god that demands unwavering love and loyalty--and these are just his actions alone.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 3 points ago in DebateReligion

    TL;DR at the end. A chunk of my comment kinda repeats itself a bit, just under different contexts.

    The reading: While there may be some merit in reading the text as poetic because of its format, I do think that we can still glean the message and context behind it; besides that, you can't claim that I'm reading it too literally, then continue the argument with the premise being literal. If the claim is that God is demonstrating his splendor to incite awe and wonder in his people, he's certainly done that by establishing his clout.

    However, that's all he's done. His scope is greater than that of a human's, by far, but in regards to the conversation, that list was effectively buildup to "shut up," on the basis strikingly similar to "might makes right," as he allowed no one who cannot match his feats to continue the discussion. As the beginning gives context to the following list, I believe it provides the stronger meaning or message in this regard over Job's response, as it is what God has directly stated and is a direct demonstration of his character. In short, his elaboration supports his demands or challenge, not vice versa.

    Job's friends: That being said, you're not wrong about his friends being asshats. While they'd stayed with Job to try to figure out his problems in the beginning, they'd demonstrated that they weren't personally invested in Job's well-being, even going so far as to mock him at one point. However, with what we've seen in the beginning of the story, I don't think God is in a position to judge them for being dicks. He did start this thing as a recommendation, then a challenge to Satan, which flies in the face of God's rant about how unfathomable his motives are at the end of the story.

    The intent: The problem with reading it as an ignorant judgment of God is that God's response doesn't challenge their claims of his behavior in any meaningful way. They're strictly claims and rhetorical questions designed as challenges of feats, rather than an elaboration on his own character. While that can inspire awe and fear, that's all it would do. It's just flexing tied intrinsically, as stated prior, to the opening demands: that only those capable of those feats are to make the challenge against him.

    To sum, the core issues are the introduction to the story altogether and the introduction to the feats and challenges, as those contextualize everything that comes after. His feats and his character are scaled on different axes and don't interact on a sufficient level and that we see what led to this chain of events spits on the argument made by Job at the end, that God is unfathomable to mortals. What we see just isn't flattering in any respect. Instead, it just looks cruel or cold-hearted.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 3 points ago in DebateReligion

    I apologize, but I'm going to set aside the topic of Romans.

    In regards to Job, however, I do appreciate your take. It's different to much of what's been said thus far and has a greater level of accuracy to other arguments here, and honestly, if it were the case, the contents of the argument would be commendable. Speaking up when someone's making haphazard guesses or making wrong claims is fair. It clears out misconceptions and makes arriving at the truth easier.

    That being said, however, the method God used to achieve that in Job isn't fit for that. He rattles off a list of his achievements and capabilities before challenging Job and gang to a pop quiz while also challenging them to match his feats. If they can't do that, then they can't talk. That doesn't give off the vibe of someone trying to correct a misconception. It's closer to someone trying to use their clout to steer the discussion beyond any point of interaction. On top of that, he made a threat to punish the others for their part in it.

    While it could be said God's merely fighting slander and meting out appropriate judgment, the contents of his rant beforehand establish a wholly different context that doesn't correct them, but instead make them stop altogether in a way that cements fear in their hearts, rather than trust.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 6 points ago in DebateReligion

    You are assuming that God is automatically evil. Therefore there could be no debate for you and that's the point God is making in the scriptures.

    I'm not OP, but I'm certain their conclusion is drawn from observing and ruminating on the texts, rather than initiating with a mindset biased against it. In any case, isn't this the sort of argument that, when inverted, is used by non-believers to scoff at believers? I don't think this is a satisfactory argument to make on either side.

    if I'm a ruler and I have some child subjects that come to me to accuse me of being evil because I didn't do for them what they wanted, I don't have to debate them about it.

    The problem is that innumerable human lives are toyed with in the process, many times resulting in death. This isn't a child whining about not getting his way. It's a tyrannical dictator slaughtering whomever he sees fit just to prove a point--or hell, if we're going to be more specific with the case of Job, it's one who makes a casual recommendation to the local arsonist and serial killer. A challenge, more like.

    However you view this, it's certainly beyond the scope of a child whining at a ruler and a wholly insincere approach to the debate, much like you accused OP of.

    [–] God silences those in the Bible that try to debate him because he does not want people to conclude that he is evil. In order to stop people from arriving at this conclusion, God feigns to be able to debate ideas, yet when pushed to debate, he tells people to either shut up or screams at them. Pokedude12 6 points ago in DebateReligion

    Well, you've gone out of your way to hammer home the presupposition several times over, so we may as well work with it.

    For the deceased, there's nothing to communicate. They can neither learn from this or hope to find God's message in it, as their lives have been terminated to demonstrate it. For the living, this text demonstrates how flagrant God's whimsy is and how far he's willing to go to tout his supremacy.

    Had the introductory bit not existed--God's bet with Satan--there could've been far many more interpretations to that story, but if this book is indeed God-breathed, then even as a mere parable, its message should ring true: that human lives are but fodder to God when his pride is at stake and that those who question him after such acts are to be silenced.

    But that's this example. Your second paragraph is still broad and open-ended. You basically use the whole paragraph to ask a rhetorical question in an attempt to make other believers think, but you don't make a point with it, especially not to non-believers. You come off as this old-timey preacher speaking to the masses, rather than directly interacting with the argument at hand.

    [–] [Gen2] Shiny Starter Pikachu from Generation 1 Yellow version after 4,436 SRs!! With this i've now gotten all of the gen1 starters shiny. Traded over to Crystal version for shiny picture Pokedude12 4 points ago in ShinyPokemon

    Generally speaking, you'd need to be able to level it up repeatedly without losing track of its EV gains (like using Rare Candies gotten by Missingno) unless it's already at a high level, like Mewtwo or the birds, then use an IV calculator to compare once it's a high enough level. The mandatory IVs are as follows:

    [from Bulbapedia] If a Pokémon's Speed, Defense, and Special IVs are all 10, and its Attack IV is 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14 or 15, it will be Shiny.

    As long as your target meets the above, you're good.

    [–] You cannot trust a presumed moral authority figure who supposedly engages in behavior that he himself finds detestable especially when that moral authority is asserted to be God. Either this is not God or the stories attributed to him are false. Pokedude12 2 points ago in DebateReligion

    The use of evil (for divine retribution): That evil is not necessary makes the argument in favor of God's use of it even worse, as that claim directly states that evil could well be avoided.

    To make a distinction though, I am not claiming that God's use of evil absolves others of evil. Rather, I am insinuating that God himself partakes of it by making use of it. This becomes especially damning precisely because, as the saying goes, evil begets evil. If the claim is made that God personally utilizes evil to judge others on Earth, then God is actively contributing to the growth of evil. When taken with how evil is unnecessary, it can be concluded that God himself is evil. That is not the message you want to make.

    To veer back on topic though, in claiming that God utilizes evil and knowing that evil produces more evil, you are affirming that God is taking his role in sowing discord among people. Either he has little to do with evil in itself (your foundational argument), or he's actively contributing by utilizing its corrupt nature to judge itself (a stray point that flies in the face of your foundational argument).

    Abraham: Again, you keep claiming that it was never for Ishmael from the start, and I keep claiming that because of the conditions laid out prior, God had changed the rules by exempting him. It's either that or God had deliberately toyed with Abraham by intending to reject Ishmael or whoever would be born first--a similar argument to yours, but presented under a different lens.

    A more accurate analogy would be to order someone to bring something, then say no and add an additional condition after they bring something that fit the terms prior. This is not a misunderstanding, but an inconsistency.

    Jacob: Again, there is a distinction between receiving mercy and becoming God's chosen lineage. Ultimately, Jacob still fulfilled his role and namesake and first, breathing action in betraying his brother for the birthright, and he still retained it well past the point of death many, many years after. Reducing this to mere forgiveness is disingenuous in the face of the message that the text preaches.

    To reiterate, the problem is that Jacob had become the trunk of God's lineage precisely because of the grievance he'd committed, not despite it. He had become God's chosen by evil means, and I would like to believe there is a difference between in being forgiven for committing atrocities and being God's favored son for it. It's a message of hope, but for all the wrong reasons.

    [–] You cannot trust a presumed moral authority figure who supposedly engages in behavior that he himself finds detestable especially when that moral authority is asserted to be God. Either this is not God or the stories attributed to him are false. Pokedude12 2 points ago in DebateReligion

    Abraham: I need to reiterate: the condition was met with Ishmael, and God refused him. The goalpost was indeed moved because despite his satisfying the condition, he was denied the covenant. There are no two ways about this--Ishmael was what God had described and was instead, after his conception, claimed to be the man who'd fight with his kin.

    God had effectively stepped in mid-game and said, "Wait, you're not allowed to do that." You can argue that Isaac's inheritance was the intended goal all along, but the facts are there: Abraham did as ordered with Ishmael, and God said no, just before adding another rule thereafter.

    Jacob: Sure, I can take God's being merciful--that's the point of Jesus' sacrifice. However, there's a distinction between mercy and rewarding treachery, and this distinction is important here. What Jacob had suffered after acquiring the birthright was moot compared to his gains. That is not mercy from worse scenarios, but instead an extortion that paid dividends many times over.

    Divine retribution: By and large, you are rambling here. The examples as demonstrated from the text are fine, but there's a significant amount of fluff that strays from the topic at hand, unlike the examples where God is claimed to directly call people to commit evil for the greater good (e.g. the various nations' judging one another over time).

    That being said, again, I need to reiterate: the foundation of your argument is that humanity alone is responsible for its own misdeeds--that God had no part in it. By elaborating in the way that you did, you gave way for claims of God's intervention by the use of further evil.

    To elaborate further, claiming God's use of evil as a means of good invites a justification for evil, which renders itself subject to the problem of evil and becomes contrary to God's self-claimed omnibenevolence. In particular, making this claim actually supports the claim made by OP: that God invites and sows discord among his people, which, from my perspective, is a lighter claim than the one of God's use of evil, as evil would not be mandatory to sow discord.

    [–] You cannot trust a presumed moral authority figure who supposedly engages in behavior that he himself finds detestable especially when that moral authority is asserted to be God. Either this is not God or the stories attributed to him are false. Pokedude12 3 points ago in DebateReligion

    The problem is that someone's punishment can be someone's reward, as seen with Jacob gaining the birthright that was stripped from Esau. Your argument lessens the importance and implications behind Jacob's active treachery to further accentuate Esau's misjudgment.

    The fact of the matter is that Jacob had taken advantage of his brother and had received God's blessings for it. This, as I'd noted in another argument, stands in stark contrast to the values that the text extols. God has rewarded treachery.

    [–] You cannot trust a presumed moral authority figure who supposedly engages in behavior that he himself finds detestable especially when that moral authority is asserted to be God. Either this is not God or the stories attributed to him are false. Pokedude12 3 points ago in DebateReligion

    Cain: Fair regarding Cain. There's not enough material to prove if he was the sort of man to fly into a rage at a moment's notice, and with other examples existing in the same text, it's not impossible either. I feel that leaving this as undecided would be fair.

    Abraham: Also agreed on Ishmael receiving blessings as determined in Gen 16, but Gen 16 also notes his role in relation to his brother's descendants, confirming not only a blessing, but also a curse that had no mention until after everything was said and done. This is in addition to Ishmael being expressly voided from Abraham's gifts noted in Gen 17. These two things together fly in the face of what had been promised to Abraham in Gen 15, by moving goalposts and explicitly denying Ishmael the covenant despite his fitting the prerequisites. God had directly changed the rules by making that exception. Again, I need to stress: this would not be a problem, had it been made known beforehand, but God had deliberately waited until it was too late to make the rule known.

    That being said, the argument for people being assholes and fucking each other over is fair. As seen in Gen 16, they'd started biting at each other's throats and abusing one another the moment the pregnancy was confirmed. This is outside God's direct interference. I do want to argue though that this is separate to God's denouncing Ishmael as a man unfit for the covenant, as God had personally made that severance Himself.

    Esau: In regards to Jacob, while that's better than nothing, it still demonstrates that even a treacherous man is perfectly acceptable to lead the chosen people. Those 14 years and the gifts given back are effectively nothing to the birthright: Jacob still made it out on top by a long shot. If nothing else, Jacob made it entire orders better than Satan did in becoming the trunk of God's lineage. While it could be argued that Jacob had redeemed himself at some point or another, I simply don't see it here, as he'd expressly chosen to retain the lineage instead of returning it.

    As an aside, that bit where you noted "God brought what he did back on him" flies in the face of the argument you'd been making, where all strife was brought upon man by his own actions. If you say here that this is divine retribution, then it can be argued that the other topics were also a consequence of divine retribution, rather than men simply committing evil. While the two could be conjoined, I would like to think that God is above using sin to judge sin, which in turn, would create more sin.

    [–] You cannot trust a presumed moral authority figure who supposedly engages in behavior that he himself finds detestable especially when that moral authority is asserted to be God. Either this is not God or the stories attributed to him are false. Pokedude12 4 points ago * (lasted edited 5 days ago) in DebateReligion

    Cain stuff: Again, had Cain been there or had received instruction from his parents, it doesn't make sense for him to be so distraught by the rejection, especially to the point of murdering his own brother. His response is severely disproportionate to the chiding he'd gotten, and if he'd indeed been properly instructed prior, he should be more desensitized to the scolding, rather than enraged. If you can convince me, he's a psychopath, I'll concede this.

    Abraham stuff: Again, there was no mention of a penalty for acting on the prophecy. They did as their god had instructed, but were punished for it. They'd received a number of clarifications prior to Hagar's birthing Ishmael, but not one had warned Abraham against rearing a child with her until it was too late. Why is the onus on them when they were following orders from the almighty? Remember the saying regarding a man who dies amid a flood because he'd rejected his god's rescue attempts.

    Esau stuff: Again, a self-declared just god had allowed a man to come into power by treachery while wholly condemning Satan for the same behavior. What was Jacob's punishment for taking advantage of Esau? Again, at the minimum, even if he weren't actually dying, Esau was on the verge of passing out at the time of the deal, and saying that Jacob was owed something after he'd swindled it from his own brother is no justification to ignore his act as a just and almighty god, precisely because others have been punished for similar acts across the whole text.

    Edit: I cannot stress this enough: letting Jacob not only go scot-free but also succeeding massively here flies in the face of what the rest of the text teaches. That is the problem.

    That being said, Esau's murder attempt, while contemptible in its own right, is outside the scope of the topic because it is not causally tied to the deal itself.

    [–] Questions & Help Thread Pokedude12 1 points ago in ShinyPokemon

    I think it's just bad luck. Rates are still 1/500-something even with the Charm IIRC, so you may just end up with some off days, especially with hatching taking longer to accomplish per egg than doing REs.