No true Christian can support the death penalty

RebuttalPro provided a reasonable explanation of his case, but one that is inherently flawed. Here is why.If I was to accept Pro's definition, then killing someone is murder. Murder is against Christian law, therefore killing someone is against Christian law. The problem with this is that therefore God is fallible.Genesis 7:23, Genesis 19:24, Exodus 12:29-30, Numbers 11:1, 2 Kings 19:37 are only a few of an estimated 158[1] times God had killed people. By your definition, God predetermining Jesus' death is the act of killing someone, after all- he caused his death by the definition of "to kill"[2]. Syllogistically, we in turn get this.P1: A perfect being breaks no laws.P2: God has broken laws.C1: Therefore God is not perfect.But seeing as for debate's sake, especially as we are focusing on the perspective of the Christian, God must be perfect. Therefore one way or another, your logic is flawed. Well, it is; with the minor premise.Murder is not as you defined. Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing someone[3][4], which even your source shows. Killing, can be defined as you said[5] however and to murder is not to kill. The former is unlawful, the latter is lawful and is where war serves under, and this is where the justification of the death penalty starts to be pieced together. In the hebrew for Exodus 20:13, the word "ratsakh" is used, which translates more than not to "murder"[6]. The Old Testament strictly prohibits murder, but not killing. If it did, then the whole of Deuteronomy when God had armies killing people, would prove God as imperfect. But they did not commit murder, for what they were doing was ordered by God and therefore lawful.This means that although I concede about James 2:10 being valid, but killing was not in the law and therefore the majority of your argument is void. You also stated: "This is especially true when you consider that Jesus said in John 8:7 “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”(5) This important saying was during a case when a person was meant to be put to death for committing adultery. This punishment was a punishment dealt out in the old testament for adultery. Here Jesus said this is wrong and was condemning the act of capital punishment." The issue is, this can be used to justify having no forms of punishment whatsoever. You have asserted that this condemns the act of the death penalty with the same logic one can use to condemn a telling off, a detention or any minor punishment. You can argue that all forms of punishments are wrong, in which case I will tackle that next round, but what we do know is that Jesus said this in the context of adultery and did not refer to anything else, so to do so is condemning all forms of punishment, and as God has punished people, he therefore went against what Jesus said. So either God is at fault, or Jesus is, which both cannot be so. Therefore we do not even need an explanation to say that this argument is not valid.Your final argument standing for the death penalty is:I have a question for my opponent, “would Jesus kill you?” Honest question whose answer you should keep in your mind when you think about what he said in John13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”(4) Jesus said we should love one another and so if Jesus would not kill you (because he loves you) then we should never be killing someone else. Well, with that logic:If you love somebody then you do not kill them.God has killed people.Therefore he does not love them.The problem is, God is said to be omnibenevolent, and you cannot be omnibenevolent and both not love people, that is contradictory. Seeing as the logic is incorrect, your premise therefore is somehow flawed, not to mention, completely asserted without even biblical evidence. One can kill and still love or else God would not be omnibenevolent.Also, what Jesus would do cannot be applied to the death penalty. Jesus rebuked murder, but did not speak of killing. he did not speak of the death penalty therefore any answer we give for his response to the death penalty is an assertion without evidence. Legally, the death penalty is not murder and is done for purely benefit. The Old Testament has a variety of actions punishible by death actually; it has a death penalty.[7] Seeing as I have proven it doesn't impede upon Jesus' talks, as he doesn't reference murder, we can assume that therefore it is morally permissible.Now that all of Pro's point has been refuted, I will go onto my main argument.ContentionA true Christian can support the death penalty. For this to be true, God must be able to accept it, Jesus must, and the Bible must. Now, all of them are the same, for Jesus=God who wrote the Bible. Now, God if he is omnipotent and perfect, will always have been, and at the time of the Old Testament there was a death penalty, and there were no rules against killing, as God had killed people before. As killing can be lawful. Therefore, it can be assumed that God is for or at least not against the death penalty.My argument truly is this simple. A Christian therefore can, is able to, be for the death penalty. If God is not against it, a Christian is able to do it semantically and literally speaking. Therefore, my position is to withhold what exists in the status quo that God is not against the death penalty, and Pro has the position to challenge it. I have proven God is not against it, therefore now there is a burden on Pro to negate my claims and prove that God is against the death penalty.Sources: [1] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] http://www.levitt.com...[7] http://rationalwiki.org...