Christian Doctrine Undermines its Own Morality

The proposition on offer is that Christian doctrine undermines its own conceptualization of morality through inconsistent beliefs and practices. The root of this debate is based on the conceptualization of God as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. This is usually based on verses like "The Lord is kind and merciful, slow to anger, rich in kindness." Other verses point towards other attributes of God, including notions of there not being anything that God doesn't see, that God knows everything, that God is everywhere, that God cannot sin, etc... However, these attributes play a significant role in Christian morality that often goes ignored. Omniscience is usually meant to mean that God knows everything. If God knows everything, this includes what you are going to do next. Thus, free will is impossible because you actually CAN'T do otherwise than God KNOWS you're going to do, or else God isn't omniscient. At this point, the Christian usually interjects that God knows everything there is to know, hoping to save free will and thus morality. However, if God knows everything there is to know, this includes the makeup of your brain chemistry, the prior influences and choices you've made in your life, etc... However, one's choices are influenced, even subconsciously, by all these factors. Choice cannot be based on anything else, because there is nothing else TO base it upon. This is commonly known as the distinction between God knowing the future and knowing everything that is possible to know. Since one's choice is based only on factors that God already knows, God STILL knows what you are going to do, regardless of the fact that you don't necessarily know WHY you do it. So in the end, a three-way choice presents itself. God is not omniscient, free will does not exist, or God is punishing people for things he knew they would do, yet did not intervene to prevent them doing so. Which brings me to my second point, the Problem of Evil. An omnipotent God could destroy all evil. An omniscient God knows when evil is being done. An omnibenevolent God would wish to destroy evil. However, evil exists. If God is going to allow evil to exist, then we must either give up one of his attributes (probably omnibenevolence), or conclude that evil is not necessarily morally repugnant. Which brings me to a third point, the inconsistency in the laws of God and the basis of morality. Christian morality is based on the laws of God. For example, the prohibition on murder is based on "Thou shalt not murder." However, the fact that God himself commits murder on a regular basis suggests that even God does not practice what he preaches. Before one objects on the grounds of tu quo qua, note that the doctrines of Christian morality are based on God's model. This model, as espoused by Jesus fairly clearly states that one should practice what one preaches. Consider the parable of the man whose debt was forgiven, yet refuses to forgive those who owe HIM. This suggests that the dynamic between behavior and ideology is condemnable when it is inconsistent. Thus, according to Jesus, or, if you accept the Trinitarian model, according to GOD HIMSELF, his behavior should be condemned. Furthermore, God's behavior represents an inconsistency present in the doctrines of Judeo-Christian religions. Moral judgments are made based on the criteria that God has set down (the Mosaic Law). However, when analyzing God's actions with the only moral conception available, one can only draw the conclusion that the actions are immoral, yet the Bible and tradition states that the actions are permissible, or even moral. ******************************************************* Thus, we can structure a three-pronged attack on Christian morality from within its own doctrines: 1) Omniscience necessitates deterministic conceptualizations regarding the causation of behavior. 2) The Problem of Evil represents a challenge to the classification of evil as immoral and/or the attributes of God. 3) The inconsistency between God's behavior and his laws represents a significant hurdle for the conceptualization of Christian morality because the character that gives the criteria for moral judgment can negate the criteria, yet remain moral. I await a rebuttal. AFFIRMED.