Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

God has all of them. It's these three attributes, along with omnibenevolence, that make him God.

Omnipotence: Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Omniscience: Does God know all currently or all that was, is, and will be? If the former: Does God know what and when he will know in the future? If the latter: What is the point of creation if God already knew the outcome?

Omnibenevolence: If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient and innocent children are dying of hunger and disease... explain how this is benevolent.

Omnipresence: If God is omniscient, doesn't that render omnipresence useless?

Omnipotence: God is a supernatural being, not my pet dragon. Why would God work against himself if he wills everything he does?
Omniscience: God knows past, present, and future, forever has, and forever will. God is love, and he wanted to express this love by creating other beings to love so that they could love him.
Onmibenevolence: Countless men, women, and children stub their toes on doorsteps every day. If you're going to bring up the question of evil, you have to go all the way. Life and the world are nothing compared to a gift that God doesn't take: his always being there. Life is a path towards this gift. Suffering weans us from life, health, family, possessions, and the other physical things we rely on and show us that our lives of something else, and it has something to offer us. Some people say it's chance leading us to uncertain fate, while others take suffering as a step closer to God and his gift.
Omniprescence: God is everywhere in the sense that his love and power can be felt by people all around the world, no matter in what place or conditions they are in.
Hope this answers your question.

---

@Consilius, ok, so your point is that what is moral never changes, and if we act immorally, even if we think it's right, we'll suffer evolutionarily? How is that different from what i've said from the beginning? You were trying to say that religious people hold this moral truth and when the rest of us do wrong, the religious are on the right side. Now you're conceding your point?

As for the rest of the thing you said about slavery and the bible. You may not want to say more about that, I'm not going to speculate on why, but since you claimed that your religion was responsible for the abolition of slavery, refusing to defend that is at your own cost. If I wanted to champion slavery, I wouldn't point to Ham either, i'd just point to all the bible chapters that teach you how to treat your slave. And to tell slaves not to care about their political status? That's a very effective ploy to keep them under your thumb.

About women and the bible, in the NT it says that women are the body and men are the head in a marriage. And that women should obey their husbands. That alone is appalling enough. Obedience is not a virtue. Believe it or not. It's marketed as one to keep people in power in power, and prevent anyone from challenging their power.

The point I've been trying to make is that religions are subject to unchanging moral codes, which are interpretations of the natural law. The irreligious don't have these, rather they rely on their natural moral compasses and governmental laws. Moral compasses can be overridden, and laws can be changed.

You can't defend slavery if you are kidnapping or buying free people. Perhaps, if you captured hostile armies in war, it wouldn't be anything worse than what's been done to them before, BUT Christ taught forgiveness of enemies later in the NT, contrary to the common OT practice. You'd be left with the people who willingly sell themselves to you to pay off money they owe you.
Slavery in the NT was Roman, so the only crime you can accuse the Bible of then was God's not striking down the Emperor on his throne and making former slaves declare war on their evil masters. Abolitionism at the time of the early church wasn't even mentioned, because sparking slave riots against the Roman Empire didn't fit the newfound Christian ideas of non-materialism and peace.
The man who said "don't worry about freedom" was the apostle Paul, a traveling preacher who earned a living making tents. He didn't own slaves, so why would he want to subjugate the small congregations he preached to? To keep them under the control of whom? The Roman government that later beheaded him?

In your Bible passage, the man is also given a responsibility, which you didn't mention:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:25-28
"7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7

As I explained, the authority of the husband in ancient households was emphasized because his wife relied on him for protection. It's like you and a police officer. The government does not make exceptions for either the officer or you, but you must respect and obey him, because he is your protector.

And if you are still going to accuse the Bible of anything, let it be inconsistency, because there is no discrimination here:
"3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

---

If gay people were gay on purpose, that would fit the qualifications for a sin. They would have to be corrected, like drug addicts or liars.

Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone...

We don't live in a theocracy and Christian sins do not qualify as reasons to discriminate, or to deny equal rights under the law. Christians should live their lives according their beliefs, if they want to, and leave everyone else alone. Whether or not being gay is a choice, being an asshole certainly is.

Those who are against homosexuality today seek to scold and correct them. It's about the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thing. Few Christian communities actually discriminate against them.

Those who are against homosexuality seek to demonize, belittle, and exclude them from society to whatever extent they can get away with.

And so, it's not the Christian community as a whole, but a few Christians who actually discriminate based on sexuality.

The 'few' Christians who have, so far, successfully managed to make gay people second class citizens in America did not accomplish this in spite of the efforts of the Christian community, but with the Christian community's implicit (and often, explicit) approval and support. If there are so many individual Christians who find discrimination abhorrent, why don't they join together to make it stop?

Those who protest gay marriage treat it as public approval of a "sinful" act. They are angry because their "sin" is becoming publicly acceptable. They are "sinning" and doing it proudly, so they're coming down on it harder. Homophobes (those who hate the gay PEOPLE) can do whatever the hell they want. They are simply going against their Christian doctrines.
I'm defending the more moderate ones, who protest gay marriage. Christians are supposed to correct sinners, and that's what they are trying to do.

So don't go after my religion because Christians are being intolerant, go after it if you can prove that Christianity is inherently intolerant.