A. Alright. And how does one go about determining justification?

B. Some of us are, so I reject your claim. I'll rephrase my claim then: if we have the power to prevent evil then we are under moral obligation to do so. Not doing so would mean to be morally irresponsible, i.e. evil. God has absolute power, even the power to control our actions or hearts, and could not suffer any unfavorable consequences, rendering him exponentially more morally obligated. The circumstances you provide may be unsatisfying, that does not render them illogical.

C. If you would care to provide evidence of this, I will consider it. Otherwise I will continue to utilize the most commonly used bible in English-speaking culture, the one that most English-speakers refer to when they refer to the bible.

A. Please do not detract from the argument. Retract your initial claim and then we can proceed.

B. It also says that Christ did not come to abolish the laws, which is to say they are not abolished. Shall I look up the definition of abolish for you as well? Please demonstrate where it says that all or some laws were only meant for certain groups of people at certain times. I am aware of other passages in the bible which would refute this, though.

D. I suppose you will have to provide a definition of evil to which we will need to come to a consensus on, then.

The determination of the meaning of words or terms is not subjective. We all agree on what type of object a table refers to; it has an objective definition. So the key point here is finding an objective definition of evil that is clear, precise and is verifiable. Since you have a contention with the way I am using it, I will allow you to determine under what definition you are willing to use the word "evil" and we can go from there.

Your lack of lexical ability is not a rebuttal to an argument.

Hypothetically, given that God is omnipotent, I don't see why not.

Is that seriously your rebuttal? Go and buy a dictionary then.

A. "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it."

I have seen no "end to the existence" of evil by any means.

B. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

C. Ok, I'll concede this point, although I still think it's arguable that superior implies higher value.

D. If evil does not justify evil, then how is God justified in committing evil? And how is the ownership of another human being not evil?

A. What, then, is the difference between killing and murder?

B. Ok. So by way of analogy, if I had the power to stop a person from murdering an innocent, am I not an accomplice to the action? Does that not make me at least partially morally responsible, and thus evil?

C. You'll have to establish why I should stop looking at the King James version rather than flatly discrediting it.

A. Is one of the commandments though shalt not kill? If it is, isn't that a moral law? If it is, then it follows that according to God, if X kills Y then X is evil. If this is God's law, then it follows that if God kills humans, then God is evil.

B. Rather than just asserting it, please explain how it is fallacious.

C. Why is God exempt from his own moral rule? If we are to understand that killing someone is wrong, then how else are we to interpret God's actions except by the standard which he gives us? If killing something that is sinful is right, then why is there a commandment that tells us to do otherwise? How is this anything but contradictory?

A. You are now changing your argument. Please first acknowledge that God has not destroyed evil before suddenly changing topics.

B. It was one of God's laws, wasn't it?

C. That is the very definition of it. If you have an issue with that take it up with people who compile definitions.

D. This goes back to our argument about whether or not it is good to do evil to evil. It would seem contradictory to state so.