Genesis 22 After these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.”

If we take the translation to be faithful to the original text, then the question is not of an apparent contradiction between God's command and the moral law, but a visible contradiction between moral truths and God's command. I know that God can't do any evil. But, doesn't God's nature also make it so that he cannot command evil? And if so, how do Christians and Catholics in general resolve this?

The idea that the mainstream media and journalism is balanced is way above and beyond me. 

http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/charlottesville-after-a-year-as-an-outsider-i-think-the-alt-right-far-from-finished/

Your example of the terrorism incited by alt-right media is something along the lines of regulating and setting precedent for behaviours which may constitute to inciting violence. I don't agree with this at all, at the same time all states have the power to do this--but no state can do this without taking off moral culpability from the individuals who do perform this themselves. 

It isn't odd to hear arguments of the sort "my actions are ultimately the responsibility of the ones who state x," although that is categorically different when someone calls for violence and incivility, this is not what alt-right leaders seem to do. On the other hand, consider the women who have been attacked for being pro-life, and assaulted, although the law in Canada has dealt with them---mainstream media has remained largely silent. So your analysis of there being balance in mainstream media is just not reflective of reality.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/im-a-pro-life-woman.-this-man-just-round-kicked-me-in-public-for-my-beliefs

https://globalnews.ca/news/4602617/woman-arrested-abortion-protest-ryerson/

Even the Charlottesville event is almost never covered with any sense of fairness;https://vdare.com/articles/the-system-repudiated-city-s-own-report-confirms-charlottesville-police-politicians-conspired-to-suppress-unite-the-right-rally
It's true that this is an unpopular opinion among sociologists and mainstream media---but that hardly comes as a surprise.

For those people who are interested and feel uneasy because of the major tech companies colluding with each other to censor certain brands of views and de-platform them, what kind of regulations or lack thereof do you predict there will be on specific monopolies like YouTube, Facebook and twitter, as well as other platforms or the internet as a whole in the future?

A distinct but interrelated question, would you like to see more censorship or lesser censorship on the internet, and what would motivate either of those decisions?

Unfortunately, Daniel, you're right. The disagreement isn't a result of deep intellectual differences but stem from tribal prejudices. Mainly because I think people like WLC, although he sometimes seems to have a confused outlook on Thomism, he at times does hit it right (he mentions the accidental property objection to Classical Theism and Divine Simplicity). I suppose, being charitable to him, reading his Q&A and watching his debates that he realises that the disagreements come from either (a) aesthetic preference over theories or (b) "who is my master?" And I think that this is the case due to the general nature of [url=https://www.amazon.com/Disagreement-Concepts-Philosophy-Bryan-Frances/dp/0745672272/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1525961117&sr=1-3&keywords=Disagreement&dpID=51xUAnUhcmL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch]disagreement[/url], and for me, a failure of epistemology and Classical Theism to secure any form of a posteriori certitude. But I guess I'd be more sympathetic to WLC since he already has a decided goal of life and has lived most of his years in service to that goal, there's also psychological factors as to why one shouldn't back down from a project when they're in so deep. WLC might think that if he defected today, his master would be very upset with him, and maybe that's wrong---but that's how most religious folk who are invested in philosophy I know think of it.

Either way, doesn't seem to be an easy decision for me.

surroundx wrote:

Take AW0 to be the initial non-temporal state of affairs in which God is the sole existent.

But I can only ever read an initial non-temporal state of affairs, as a statement about grounding relations. The actual world if eternalism is true, always existed, so I cannot give it another reading. So, given that reading, AW0 is causing both AW1 and AW2 or some other state of affairs. 

I read your 'change in state of affairs' as them needing an explanation for the difference in the two distinct possible worlds. Why is this world actualised rather than some other, and what is the explanation of that? That's a fair question. I suppose brute facts are going to come somewhere into the whole phase. And you're right, pure actuality doesn't explain the fact that AW1 followed from AW0.  My issue is two-fold, whether (1) the (a) change of the state of affairs between possible worlds or (b) creation implies that God goes from being potential to actual, and (2) whether there is a maximal state of affairs. There are going to be different truth makers for PW1 (God) and PW2 (God + Existents), and we're going to have more beings in PW2, what's the classical theist's response against saying that PW2 is a better/more maximal state of affairs than PW1?