"Thou shalt not kill" should be changed to "Thou shalt preserve life"

=== DILEMMA'S === #1: Murderer: On the point about injuring people: The person in hand has not killed or murdered anyone. Sure, he should be imprisoned, but he has not deprived anyone of life. I would like to, at this time ,ask my opponent under what circumstances murder would be acceptable. Two people to kill someone tied in a chair: Should you kill those 2 people, you have saved only 1 person. What could the motives of those people be. Perhaps they're brother stopping a serial murder who killed their families. We should disregard all moral choices made by the people in question, as we are trying to maximise life. if they will kill again, that is something to take into account, and innocent people should be valued over guilty people given a dilemma where the net amount of deaths either side are equal. To answer the question, let the one person die, unless the people in hand will kill more people. Dilemma #2: Abortion We both have the same ground here. However, my opponent points out here that murder is subject to the law and not the bible. Therefore in a state of anarchy, what is and isn't murder? There is no supreme law stating what is and what isn't. Dilemma #3: Train If you follow thou shalt not murder, you cannot change the tracks, as it is murder to directly kill one party, regardless of the maximisation of life. Remember, we are not taking the guiltiness of the people into account. The only other variable is if they would kill. If they would kill, more than you would save (they would have to kill 5 people), then not changing the tracks is justified. Dilemma #4: Destruction Under the defence of property, the person can be killed to save money. However, under thou shalt preserve life, the person would also be allowed to be shot. Your dilemma states he would kill nearby wildlife. Although human life is more important than wildlife, one person cannot be valued over the livelihood of hundreds of animals. We are dealing with Christian morals here, and we must remember we are taking into consideration that everything is made by God, and has a purpose regardless of significance. Thou shalt preserve life does not necessarily regard human life. A hundred birds and deer are more valuable than one human. And a human that is prone to burning towns that could possibly harm others. DILEMMA #5: War Christianity encourages pacifism. However, let's consider everything. If the other country invades you, it is unknown how many people they will kill. Let's just say I have a nation of 250,000 people and an army of 10,000. The neighbouring country has double that, but only sends 12,000 soldiers. Obviously, I would only need to defeat 9,000 of their troops before they retreated in defeat. Now, the army would obviously pillage and burn cities, as they are establishing an oppressive. Should they ultimatley kill more than would be killed in the war, say, 15000 would be killed in the war. if the invaders kill more than 15000 the war would be justifiable. Of course, Jesus (Taking into account we are debating Christianity) would say to the other cheek. He never detested the Roman invaders. The invaders might destroy the christian documents, but it would live on through people and through worshipping it. . Thanks, Panda.