All the while avoiding the point... and your end game is no different than your pastor friend's end game, regarding conversion. Just from the opposite angle.
TEC, did you overlook reading what I posted this morning, in response to MissFit's complaint about my posting in a seemingly dismissive fashion? I explained my frustration stems from those posters who feel free to ignore ALL vestiges of common sense and refuse to analyze what they're about to post. The main inspiration was you, and your continued reliance on the childish and pointless "but you did it, too!" (tu quoque) fallacy.
So here we are, only a few hours later, and you're simply throwing up the same drivel, still grasping at straws, using logic that has absolutely ZERO relevance to the question at hand.
And even if it's true, SO WHAT? Isn't it rather obvious to most anyone reading that the pastor likely feels compelled to tend to Jesus' lost sheep (or more cynically, to boost donations and tithes) and Cofty feels compelled to free people from ancient superstitious thinking of belief in Gods?
None of which has anything to do with the price of tea in China, and only distracts from the question Cofty asked:
why did God not intervene to save lives in 2004?
Don't worry if you can't come up with a satisfying answer: theologians have wrestled with the same question for a millenia now, and haven't come up with anything more satisfying than also offering silly distractions.