(June 6, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Gemini Wrote: Given our understanding of morality, there is no question that a person who was able prevent a child from being crushed to death as a result of an earthquake, or who could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from a tsunami, and failed to act, would be immoral.
I think I addressed the main point of the first part of your post (at least enough to keep discussing it) in the post above.
Regarding this statement, you run in to a problem of where to draw the line on "permitted" suffering. Are you saying that it is God's moral duty to remove all suffering in a world of free people? How would that work? Can you rationally draw a line between natural evil and evil caused by people's choices and say that is where an intervention is permitted and that is where one is not?
