No true Christian can support the death penalty

RebuttalNow I believe I understand your concept of the difference between murder and killing now. Although It still does not help you case. As when your source cited states "Since man is made in the image of God, his life is infinitely precious — only God Himself has the right to give and take life." That means only God has the right to apply the death penalty or kill or murder. All of these involve the simple concept of taking a life, which according to your source only God should be able to do. As such your argument stands defeated using your own source.Well, no. The source was for the Hebrew, in which I had two and had verfied the correctness. What you underlined is once again just an assrtion. Man being made in the image of God does nothing to instrinsically mean his life is infinitely precious. This needs to by syllogistically or factually proved, or else it is a non sequitur. After all, image of God could be interpreted as a lesser form of God, and if God is infinitely precious therefore humans must be less.And even so, an infinitely precious life has no inherent connotation to therefore cannot have his life taken from. After all, if God's value = infinite, man's value = infinite then you have to fulfill the BOP to say somehow God only has this right, because syllogistically your case is the opposite.The Bible states, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." - Isiah 64:6We are all, biblically flawed and therefore cannot be on the same terms of God. My point is that my source did absolutely nothing to damage my stance as the Hebrew was the focus, my other source affirmed this and this statement is false. To say that because it is false, my whole source is, is the fallacy of the composition.And I made a semantic error when I wrote, there is evidence God =/= Jesus. I meant to infer that God = Jesus, but the context should have made that obvious. After all, it was a rebuttal, I had evidence about God = Jesus and it was semantically phrased to show antipathy against the said point. Jesus is equal to God, which is a direct contradiction of your argument, as you claimed the opposite.What? If God is not bound by logic, then God is bound by the fact that god is not bound by logic and you have a paradox. So your assumption is fallacious as it is a paradox and is unable to help you argument. The fact that God is unbound from logic is a paradox? In what way? I mean, until this is met it is a non sequitur. And if you accept the biblical evidence I provided above of God's omnipotence, therefore whether we understand it or not, God must be omnipotent, simply because omnipotent requires the ability to do everything. Omnipotence includes the ability to be paradoxical and not paradoxical. Omnipotence, by very definition includes the ability to be paradoxical yet still all-powerful. By definition it includes the ability to be outside of any known or unknown paradigm. You argument was a repetition of your previous argument, and in order for my position to be negated, the idea of omnipotence must be challenged, which you did not. Remember, as I have stated before in my arguments I do not require a omnipotent God and have shown that a fallible God is rational according to the Bible. This remember is an argument you have failed to negate.If God is fallible, his rules and laws can be, therefre he does not hold any objective authority which means that a Christian who accepts this can fully believe in the death penalty. To say God can be flawed is to degrade your entire argument, and truly brings out the effect that the No True Scotsman fallacy has. I am not debating with that in mind, but if God is flawed, therefore there is a chance not following him is actually the right thing to do. Once this chance exists, bu the definition of "can", a Christian "is able to" believe in the death penalty, especially if he thinks God is wrong about it and he is right.If God can be wrong, then a Christian could think God is wrong, as it is a likelihood, then believe in the death penalty. Nothing is stopping this from being the case which is the issue of placing fallibility on God.I urge the voters to side with the opposition. The opposition has left my points standing strongly about how the Bible does not refer to killing, but murder and by affirming the fallibility of God he has failed. He himself argued against his own stance by saying God = Jesus, as if this is the case then what would Jesus do is irrelevant, as well as in regards to that, asserting what God and Jesus would do, and fallaciously appealing to the authority of my source by asserting something without biblical evidence.I ask the floor to think carefully, vote responsibly, vote fairly, i.e, side with Con. I thank iamatheistandthisiswhy for this engaging debate however.Sources:As before.