I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

First, I want to begin by reminding voters that both PRO and CON agreed that grammar would not be an issue unless it interfered with meaning. While my opponent is evidently confused, I do not see any egregious instances where his grammar interfered with his ability to argue. Therefore, on behalf of my opponent, I ask that grammar be weighed neutral in this debate. I also want to remind voters of my argument as established in round #1, that "I will take the opposite position, that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God. "I will now (again) attempt to cure my opponent of his confusion:1) My opponent states: "Either you are arguing against the Biblical Christ or not. "My opponent is correct. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST THE BIBLICAL CHRIST.2) My opponent states: "So you reject the Christian God is supreme, that makes the Christian God subordinate to another entity. " Incorrect. I stated that "My opponent's use of the word "Supreme" is wholly irrelevant to this debate. " I can care less who is subordinate to whom. It does nothing to advance the argument at hand.3) My opponent states: "I do not see why my opponent claims only the Christian God is applicable to this debate. .. "I never made this claim. My opponent is putting words into my mouth. I said that " for the purposes of defining the Christian God, Biblical Scripture is THE AUTHORITY. " "If [my opponent] wants to make a case about Hinduism, he must first define the Hindu God. " My opponent does not seem to understand that there are many religions in the world, all of which claim their concept of God to be the One True God. All of these concepts of "One True God" coexist, even if none of the religions would acknowledge the existence of other God(s).4) My opponent wants "to see hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is responsible for creating the Cosmos. " At this point, we are ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD. THEREFORE, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CHRISTIANITY, SCRIPTURE IS THE AUTHORITY. I QUOTE AGAIN THE SAME SCRIPTURE:John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. " (Jesus is God)According to Christianity, JESUS IS GOD. That is all. Perhaps my opponent is stating that Jesus has no religious significance outside of Christianity. Besides this observation's worth as a non-sequitor, if that is the case, see my next point.5) "Not just references from a Biblical narrative. "It seems my opponent does not subscribe to Christianity when he talks about God. I did not realize this. .. he gave every indication he was talking about the Christian God when he referenced God and Christ:". .. it is my opponents burden of proof to convince me why we have to also accept a human ( Christ ) alongside God. .. ""Ok, in your first round you state in capital letters LIKE Christ, I'm a bit confused as to your approach here, I am claiming the one and only Christ, Jesus. The Christ we are talking about. " (in comments section when negotiating how we were going to debate)Given this turn of events, I will simply state that MY OPPONENT IS CREATING HIS OWN RELIGION:a) He has a concept of God that neither you nor I know or understand. b) His concept of God does not conform to any one religious doctrine. c) He aims to communicate his concept of God to you and me. d) He aims to convince us that his views are correct. MY OPPONENT IS THUS ASSUMING THE CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IN HIS OWN RELIGION. Like Christ himself, and John Smith (Mormon), Elijah Muhammad (NoI), the Jewish prophets, Buddha, and Osiris, these "prophets" claim that they see God in His True Splendor, and it is up to them to communicate God to us. My opponent thus fits EXACTLY into my definition of a Christ-LIKE entity:"In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a man is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence. "Without my opponent, I would most certainly be ignorant of what his concept of God would be. At this time I am still somewhat ignorant of his concept of God, although I know more about it now than I did before the debate began.6) My opponent states: "My contention is, I believe in God so the story of the Christ is un-necessary to have a relationship with God. "I now understand that my opponent is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN GOD. Again, I will assert that my opponent is creating his own religion. I have demonstrated that even in his own religion, a Christ-LIKE entity (my opponent) is absolutely necessary in order for mankind to know that his God exists.7) "Indeed lots of Muslims and Hindus and all types of religions have a relationship with God, am I to believe because all these people reject Christ that they are not able to communicate with God. "Again, MUSLIMS HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUSLIM GOD, AND HINDUS HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HINDU GOD. MY OPPONENT HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS OWN VERSION OF GOD. ALL OF THESE RELIGIONS NEED A CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN ORDER FOR MANKIND TO KNOW THAT THEIR GOD EXISTS. Muslims have Mohammad, Hindus have Krishna, and my opponent has himself.8) "To think the Christ is necessary to reach God is preposterous. " "Jesus is an impostor who assumes the identity of another God. "MY OPPONENT IS DEFINING ONE ASPECT OF HIS RELIGION HERE. IF NOT FOR MY OPPONENT, I WOULD NOT KNOW THIS ABOUT HIS VERSION OF GOD. THEREFORE, MY OPPONENT IS THE CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN HIS OWN RELIGION. CLOSING COMMENTS:I did not expect my opponent to be this confused by my argument. I also did not expect my opponent to proffer his own concept of God that does not conform to any of the world's religions. Regardless, through the course of this debate, everything I have said in round #2 holds, and indeed, IF ONE BELIEVES GOD EXISTS, A CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I will repeat my round #2 arguments:In Christianity, God manifests through Christ to demonstrate love. As God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. Therefore, to have God, one MUST have the Christ. In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a [Christ-LIKE figure] is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence. Given this logic, it is impossible to believe in God without a Christ-like figure, be it Christ or a similar figure in ANOTHER RELIGION OR BELIEF SYSTEM. The Christ figure is absolutely necessary to establish God's existence. My opponent has done nothing to refute these assertions. I will now also cite two verses in Scripture to define the Christian God, and how Christ is absolutely necessary to Christianity: I John 4:7-8(7) Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (8) Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. John 3:16(16) For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. . http://www.biblegateway.com...http://www.biblegateway.com... My opponent needs to realize that if he considers himself a Christian, to not believe Christ is necessary is heresy. I'm not sure if my opponent believes in Christianity or not, just pointing that out to him. I'm not sure my opponent knows where he is going with his argument. However, I am certain I know where I am going with mine. I have stayed consistent throughout, and have easily affirmed that IF ONE BELIEVES GOD EXISTS, A CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.