"With regards to your little strawman about me being off topic when I was talking about right and wrong and you were talking about evil, I will just ask you this question: If God defines evil, is it logical to conclude that he then does NOT also define right and wrong? If not, why not?"
It was me who originally brought this up.
Now, it's ten to eight, so I might not be functioning correctly. Mytypos are far more vast, and the delete key is being used liberally to correct this. But I'll try to explain it, anyway.
According to the dictionary, RIGHT means, in part: "2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3 a : agreeable to a standard" and GOOD means, in part,: " a (1) : VIRTUOUS, RIGHT, COMMENDABLE <a good person>", so we can see the distinction here between right and good, namely that right UPHOLDS to a standard, and good IS that standard.
So, the attempt herein is either to define GOOD and therefore negatively define EVIL (because that is, after all, the point of this thread), or to define EVIL, and come to a conclusion.
Describing RIGHT actions can help us come to a conclusion about some of the features that GOOD entails, but it can never tell us what GOOD actually IS. IT's like showing people a beautiful flower, a beautiful woman, a beautiful painting, and a beautiful scene, and telling them you have defined beauty. You haven't, you've simply shown some aspects of it.
Thus, in claiming that through defining right as actions performed by God, you're telling us that we can see things upholding to the standard of GOOD. However, for the purposes of the negative definition of EVIL it becomes necessary to cut to the chase, so to speak, and say that if the actions of God are RIGHT then the definition that we are after, ie GOOD, is...and then state whatever the logical conclusion is (which is, I believe, in this case, whatever moral code God adheres to).
============================
The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126 "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible "