Arguing various delusions with insane people is like kicking a dog on a chain.....poor mutt will continue barking and try to bite the foot coming near to kick again.....the chain is the PROBLEM not the barking or the kicking.....liberate the poor dog by reporting the owner to authorities for abuse of a defenseless animal

They fundamentally (no pun intended) have to surrender one of the three attributes, because otherwise, there's no accounting for murders, accidental deaths, disease, parasites, predators, and so on, unless God Himself wants people to die in horrible ways.

Now, I, as a father, don't protect my child from absolutely every hazard, because A) I can't, not being omnipotent and omniscient, and B), I know she has to grow up in a world where she has to take care of herself and I won't be around forever. BUT, if I were an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent Father, like God is supposed to be, then I would be able to protect her from all manner of harm; even hangnails! So the only reason not to would be that I'm not omnibenevolent; I want her to suffer and learn lessons, instead of (as the case is in real life) knowing that suffering and learning lessons is part of growing up.

This type of God is like a lottery winner who doesn't tell the family they're now filthy rich, but just disappears for 8 hours a day and pretends to work while everyone else goes and works and lives a normal life; he thinks they're building character. I imagine the family might build some resentment once they found out they could have moved to a better house years ago.

Greta Christina's Blog: All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Good: Pick Two, or, How Christian Theology Shoots Itself In the Foot [gretachristina.typepad.com]

She describes her former religious beliefs in it. She believed in a World-Soul that is present in all conscious entities, and her main "evidence" was that it did not seem like consciousness could be the result of anything physical. She believed that this entity was neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent. "I thought of the World-Soul as a powerful being, certainly wiser and more powerful and more knowledgeable than me... but I still saw it as limited, flawed, with room to learn and grow."

Avoiding the difficulties of being tri-omni had an interesting consequence. "And this made my belief much easier to cling to... and much harder to let go of." Because it was much less vulnerable to disproof. GC stated that a tri-omni entity is much more pleasant to think about than polytheist pantheons that seemed much like her former junior high school's fellow students. But as she says, the Universe that we live in seems much more like the product of the latter sort of entities than the former.

I've always felt that if Christians truly believed what they claim to believe their lives would be radically different. Religion is the expression of humankinds vast narcissism. Religion is a methodology for escaping our innate sense of responsibility to the rest of the tribe. It allows the believer to take from others and have more than others while simultaneously feeling noble and generous. At the heart of it is cynicism, nihilism and greed.

No one ever said god botherers were rational

I think this is just a manifestation of the fact that a tri-omni god is logically impossible, it just sounds good. So in practice, you have to throw one or more of those attributes under the bus (or at least, de-emphasize it) to make it less dissonant. And which one you pick, is a function of your religious tradition.

A Jewish rabbi wrote a book that did well years ago entitled When Bad Things Happen to Good People. His attempt at a theodicy (the technical term for trying to explain your way out of the Problem of Evil) was to ditch omnipotence. God cares -- he really does -- but his hands are tied; it's beyond his abilities to do anything about suffering. Despite, you know, having created all of existence. He must have pulled a hamstring in the process I guess.

And that's just one example. But you'd expect Judaism to ditch omnipotence; god has never shown himself potent on their behalf, with the result that their whole cultural identity is that of the beleagured minority, always in some diaspora or other, or trying to come back from one. As Tevye said in Fiddler On The Roof, "I know we're the chosen people, but for once, couldn't you choose someone else?"

So there's some validity to the argument but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're totally consistent. It's more that they de-emphasize one aspect of god than abandon it altogether. For example, the author can say that Catholicism doesn't believe in omniscience, and yet ... how do you explain Catholic guilt? For that level of self-loathing, don't you need an all-knowing god who runs a sort of panopticon and is always observing you and finding you wanting?

If you're a believer none of this matters. What I mean is that these are details that don't have to interfere with one's faith. My mother just trusts Jesus. That's good enough. My brother, the smartest in the family, has to willfully put aside glaring inconsistencies, logical chasms, and general nonsense.