Cofty said- You are making a groundless assertion that god didn't stop the tsunami because he had a better, long-term plan.
You're mischaracterizing the "benign neglect" claim, for one.
The "benign neglect" apologetic hinges on inactivity at a certain time, based on the idea of needing to intervene at a later time in order to treat the condition in a more-effective manner, since the ultimate and best resolution of the condition is actually provided under the more-controlled environment. Eg the procedure shouldn't be performed in-office, but is better-left to be performed in the controlled environment of a surgery suite, since most doctors don't have surgery centers on stand-by for their beck-and-call 24/7, with surgical teams pre-assembled on stand-by (teams, with anaesthesiologists, nurses, etc need to be scheduled, with a surgery date set in advance, so the time and place is planned and efforts can be coordinated).
In the analogy, God is planning to intervene in a final battle (Armageddon), set at an exact time which no one but God knows (that's a hint). To intervene early would be potentially disruptive to the success of the long-term intervention.
Cofty said- I am asking how that excuses him from stopping the tsunami and preventing the destruction of 250 000 lives in the short term. How would that negatively impact on his long-term solution?
Did you not read? Aside from the excuse implied in the very name (benign NEGLECT), in addition to the need for coordination, I offered TWO MORE reasons:
1) intervening in the short-term is a stop-gap measure, only, so hence deemed unnecessary, and,
2) intervening in the short-term likely interferes with the prognosis for the success of the long-term 'treatment', for a number of reasons offered in the analogy (eg trying to open the wound in-office involves risks of secondary infection setting in, and it destroys cancer cells which need to be treated with special dyes to allow the doctor to perform the more-effective Moh's procedure, etc).
You can certainty provide the theological Bible-based explanation for why God is failing to act.
Cofty said- Your metaphor/analogy is counter-productive.
More groundless unsupported conclusions?
I'll give you one more chance to engage on the "benign neglect" argument itself, but then if you can't or don't act (ironically providing an example of benign neglect of your own), I'll shift sides and show you how to dismantle the apologetic argument using logic (and not just appeals to Cofty's authority, as if you don't have to explain WHY you reach conclusions).