In defense of a just God

Sometimes I see people saying that they are repulsed by "the Abrahamic religions" (i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam) because in the Bible there is a record of God telling Abraham to go sacrifice his son Isaac (see Genesis 22, Old Testament). What kind of just god would do that to a man? There are two aspects to the story that redeem it from being an unjust action.

1) This was a teaching moment for Abraham to learn about the mission of the future Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who would die for the sins of all mankind. God did not intend for Abraham to actually kill his son Isaac. He had an angel stop the sacrifice before it could be carried out, and he even provided a ram nearby that Abraham and Isaac could sacrifice together.

2) Abraham had recently allowed his wife Sarah to send her maidservant, Hagar, and his firstborn (but not "of the covenant") son, Ishmael (who was born to Hagar), away into the wilderness where they would have died if not for an angel helping them (see Genesis 21, Old Testament):

14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept.

17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.

18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

This was a wrong action by Sarah and Abraham. Even if God reassured Abraham about Isaac's eventual safety, Hagar didn't get that divine reassurance (see Genesis 21:12-13). Hagar genuinely thought she was going to have to watch her own child die of thirst until an angel intervened. Abraham and Sarah needed to be taught a lesson about love and possibly even be punished for placing his "son but not the legitimate heir" and Hagar in mortal danger. I think the mental suffering he later experienced while thinking he had to sacrifice Isaac was a just punishment and appropriate lesson for what he had done to Hagar and Ishmael. 

Far from this story showing God to be an unjust God, it shows him to be on the side of all children, including those who are not "chosen" by birth into a certain bloodline or covenant. This understanding of God makes me appreciate him all the more in the wake of the Israeli-caused killing of 70,000 people in Gaza. The Palestinians are almost certainly part Israelite in heritage, but because they are not certified members of the tribe of Judah, they have been denied equality and sometimes even existence within the historical land of Israel. Also, a very wrong action.

Three directions for possible scientific inquiries about bones in the head

For some reason, despite all the body scan data that we can now obtain and process, I never see anything in the headlines about how cranial scan data is giving rise to new scientific knowledge about cognition, vision, hearing, human development over time, voice resonance, and so on. I know the Nazis did some measuring of the cranium along with other truly objectionable experiments, but that's no reason now, 80 years later, to totally ignore the semi-solid case our brain sits inside! There's nothing immoral or wrong about measuring skull dimensions. There are three directions of inquiry I am most curious about:

1) skull structure and vocal characteristics

I am a singer and have been since elementary school. Without intending to, I sound a lot like my mother when she sings. I'm sure it's because of underlying bone similarities that I inherited from her. I'd love to see more research published in this area.

2) heritable adaptations

When I look at skull and feature characteristics from around the world, I no longer find the "out of Africa" origin theory for all humanity quite so compelling. Some traits seem like they could have arisen in response to environmental stimuli and then persisted independently in a way that is not fully explained by "survival of the species." (Hooded eyes among Scandinavians are one example.) Darwin would be the first to insist on utilizing new data collection methods to expand upon his theory.

3) cognition variation, especially onset and severity of dementia

With Alzheimer's becoming such a pressing public issue of concern, we should be looking at the issue of cognitive impairment from every available angle. If there is something we can modify in the skull that will lessen or delay dementia, we should be investigating that possibility with great energy.