He knew they were angels...he called them Adonai in the Hebrew (Gen. 19:2). He wasn't offering hospitality and defending strangers...he was kissing the angel's asses. It's translated as "my lords", and "lord" is technically correct, but that word for lord is generally reserved for the big guy, not an average guy on the street. So this kinda changes the picture of "conflicting moralities" a bit. It's more of a conflict between morality and self-interest.

But Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac is still lionized. It's held up as the proper attitude, and the entire episode shows the Hebrew deity wants Abraham to prove he's willing to do it. It's his willingness to do so, and the desire on the Hebrew deity's part for worshipers willing to do that sort of thing, that presents the ethical problem.

Actually, philosophy of science and most of the scientific method is based on acknowledging and overcoming (to the best degree our limited perceptions and minds are capable of) the flawed abilities of humanity. The problem of the under-determination of the epistemological grounding and justification of science is taught in undergraduate classes, and the most basic of limitations, that any observation is "from" a given viewpoint in space/time, and that the final evaluations must be made by a human mind, which evolved to avoid tigers and reproduce, not to be "knowledge detectors and truth evaluators", is well-known, acknowledged, and taught in elementary classes and texts. Science does not claim these limitations don't exist...it simply acknowledges them and does the best it can to figure things out, anyway. The benefit of this technique is clear...planes fly, bridges stand, and we can chat using electrons. From EMPIRICAL evidence, it works.

From EMPIRICAL evidence, we can also conclude that you were either ignorant of the fact that science includes these notions and teaches them, or you were purposefully misrepresenting the truth to fit your agenda. If you are ignorant of science, why do you think you are qualified to judge it merits or flaws? If you were purposefully misrepresenting the truth, why? Do you think it's important to believe in true things? If so, why would you want to mislead other people into believing false things?

Note, IANAC (I am not a Christian, nor a theist, for most values of theist), but there is another way of seeing this that is just a tad bit more charitable to the sincere believers who wrote those accounts. These were a deeply religious people, who spawned from a group who originally lived outside the Sumerian city-state of Ur. They left civilization to follow a vision, Abraham's vision, and in those days that meant almost certain death from beasts, starvation, and thirst. The kind of people who do that sort of thing possess a deep and abiding faith that their god is firmly in charge of their situation, and the entire basis of Abraham's crew was a covenant with their god...a special, intimate relationship.

But, predictably, the world they existed in was horrible. Not only was their hunger, thirst, and wild animals, but there were other people. Being a political unit as well as a religious one, their trip also involved a promised land. Now, as a political group, that was no problem...they would just do what was normal back then. Go to war, kill the Canaanites or whoever, and take the land. But all of this suffering, all of this killing, all of this disease and starvation and thirst, needed to be accounted for. Other religions of the time were better equipped for this...they just said there were bad gods and good gods, and that all of the evil in life came from the bad gods. But the ancient Jews only had one god, so they had to reconcile the god they were to love, trust, and obey with a god that killed their children, demanded atrocities, and made the desert sun cruel.

So this attitude, as heinous as it is, didn't come about because these people were monsters...it's an attempt at a theodicy, and explanation for the existence of evil. It's also an attempt to reconcile the difficult tension of being both a political and religious belief-system. While other cultures at the same time were going through this, they were polytheistic or henotheistic, which allowed for more ambiguity and flexibility. They didn't need a concept of good that included the nastier parts of existence, while the monotheistic faiths did (and still do).

It's odd that with all this philosophizing on Abraham and Isaac no one has brought up Kierkegaard and "Fear and Trembling". There is an existentialist position for theism (albeit not theism as defined by most believers), although it might be more precise to say "a theistic position within existentialism".

While I am generally pretty critical of the Abrahamic faiths as practiced in the modern era, and mainstream, exoteric interpretations of religions in general, a nuanced interpretation is not only possible, but they abound within philosophical and theological literature. Abraham and Isaac is second only to the Sermon on the Mount as a favorite subject of philosophers.

Just a quick question...when, exactly, has people's ability to comment on the habits of soldiers been something that was at risk? In 34 years, I have seen our military going and attacking people who have nothing to do with us. They have never come near us and I have never felt in danger from any other nation. There have been many "threats" we have been told about, but none that I have seen. Since I know, from history and what has happened in other countries, that governments lie to their people about "threats" to justify their behavior all the time, why, exactly, should I have faith that our government is telling us the truth?

In addition to that, with every lie this country's government has been caught in, with every manipulation of the media, with every broken promise and bought politician and just plain bald-faced corruption across the board and both sides of the aisle, why should I have faith that our government is telling us the truth?

How do you know we are really the good guys? Everyone, from the sackers of Rome to the loyal comrades of the USSR were told they were the good guys by their leaders. The Nazis though they were the good guys. EVERYONE thinks their own side is the good guys.

Every soldier says they aren't murderers, because of course the murder of someone on the other side isn't murder, right? It's heroics so long as you murder for the right people. It's not torture...it's interrogation. It's not rape, it's psychological undermining.

But I'm sure that doesn't apply to YOUR friends. They're the heroes. They're the good ones. It's always the other guys, the bad apples, just acting on their own, with no orders or supervision at all. Because that's how the military is...it's just free time, and you run around just doing what you want with no commanding officers, or cameras, or anything to keep those bad apples in line. Of course. There's no reason for you to look at them twice in suspicion...or for us to look at you that way for the company you keep.

Of course.

Or you know...it might make more sense that people who like violence, control over others, and the prospect of killing people seek out positions in life which give them the opportunity to do those things with impunity. But I'm sure your way of viewing the world, the one that trusts governments to tell you the truth and soldiers to not be violent killers, is the right one. After all, it makes so much sense.

And then there are the protestors!

And if those were enough, then we wouldn't be talking about this. They aren't. Once upon a time, trees and plants did the job fine. Then we both cut them down and built factories everywhere that pump CO2 out, including little ones with wheels on them, so now we need a new solution.

While I am a supporter of eco-preservation and green tech, I have to agree that there is an entire industry sector out there who is eager as hell to turn saving the ecosystem into a goose laying golden eggs. While I know, of course, that planting trees, while technically a solution, isn't really a solution because people aren't going to give up urban environments any time soon (which is exactly where we need the most carbon fixing), the point is valid...there started being an eco-industrial complex the moment people with money started being willing to spend it on the issue.

There is also an edu-industrial complex who wants to own learning, an entertainment-industrial complex that already owns entertainment, etc, etc.

It's not just weapons dealers, bankers, the MPAA/RIAA, and Microsoft that want to own a sector of the economy. The minute it stopped just being fringe hippies that gave a shit about the environment, slime-buckets came oozing out of MBA programs all over the country to exploit it.

...we will see martial law declared preemptively, military and police forces will start flooding areas before anything can happen, and people who the computer says will be key figures in the revolution will be preemptively jailed and/or executed.

Don't get your hopes up, kids. This isn't the Foundation, and it won't be used to save civilization, it will be used to keep people already in power from even having a chance of losing that power. If you haven't noticed, the folks running the show think the only value of civilization is that it gives them a system within which to gain power and wealth.

No, the First Amendment means nothing. What are you, new?

But...but...Raptor Jesus went extinct for your sins!

That was pretty funny. Were you not anon, I would mod up.

No serious military forces, no manageable infrastructure, a single banking cartel, a single trade cartel, etc. It's even less reasonable than Herbert's galaxy-spanning feudalism; in that case, at least, nodes of infrastructure surrounding a noble family basically dealt with their own affairs. It's reasonable to manage one planet, so long as you have the right technology and people. But a republic (or an empire) with a single governmental structure spanning an entire galaxy with almost no real infrastructure? Not possible.

Yup. A few TOS episodes (Charlie X, The Empath, etc) had people with mental abilities, and once Spock and Kirk replicated the conditions, they gained the abilities (Plato's Stepchildren). They would have looked down on the idea that people used these abilities and a religion surrounding them to essentially create a theocracy. Even in the Old Republic and Clone War eras, if you're a Jedi you're automatically a general...wtf? A padawan is a general? She's like 15!