Okay, I switched my brain back on and I will have to withdraw what I previously wrote (oh wait, someone already removed it so that's good). It's too painful not to be allowed to think.
Cofty asked which of these I disagree with:
1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved
2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more
3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi
4. God did not stop the tsuanmi
5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving
6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.
It starts to go off the rails at point 5.
Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:
God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love.
This is not necessarily true.
I will create a couple more analogies that you can have fun misapplying and pretending not to understand.
You are a generous father. Does every action taken in isolation reflect that? Your daughter asks you for a high powered sports car as soon as she passes her driving test. Let's say you have the power to buy it i.e. it's easily affordable to you. Should we expect every action you make (or do not make) to reflect your generous personality? If we take your decision in isolation (assuming that you are a sensible parent who withholds it because of care for her safety) does this non-action in isolation reflect your entire personality as non-generous?
Here's another. The objective of a soccer team is to get the ball to other end of the pitch and score. A player makes a pass backwards. If taken in isolation does that mean that the player is not acting in accord with the objective?
Now you will say ... explain how killing a gazillion people = passing a soccer ball, blah.
