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

I also want to remind voters again that PRO and CON are reversed in this debate, and that I am arguing that "a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God. "A) It seems my opponent is still confused by what I mean by "Christ-LIKE". Although I thought we had resolved this before we started the debate, I will repeat what I described in round #2:". .. the need for a human, empowered by the divine, to communicate the wishes of the divine to man. Without this divinely inspired human, mankind would be left in the dark, without vision or guidance, and forever left to its imperfections. To the extent that religions seek to inspire men to perfection. .. to not have this core link. .. would be akin to not having the religion at all. Without the religion to proclaim the existence of God, God would not exist to man. "This human is indeed "Christ-LIKE" in that without this human, the connection to (a non-denominational) God would not exist. How these other religions and belief systems define God is their business, and irrelevant to Christianity. Again, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CHRISTIANITY, without Christ, there would be no concept of God's love. As God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. B) I remind my opponent (again) that I am a male. I would appreciate it if he stops confusing this simple fact. .. it is getting on my nerves. We are not in a debate about prostitution, and I am no longer arguing for gender equality:. http://debate.org...C) I will now address my opponent's new slew of myriad and unfortunate mishaps in mixing religions, and also rebut any counter-arguments:1) My opponent states: "I will ask the audience here to make a special not [sic] of how my opponent wishes to cite sources outside of Christianity to further strengthen her arguments, but when I do so he claims it is irrelevant to the Christian God. "First of all, my opponent is correct in his assertion. However, my opponent remains confused here in that he thinks it is proper to mix religions. Again, he is welcome to cite sources outside Christianity to further strengthen his arguments. However, he must keep those sources WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RELIGIONS. Those sources are indeed irrelevant to the Christian God. For example, I would not use Biblical Scripture to describe Nirvana. That would simply be inappropriate. Similarly, I would not use the Bhagavad Gita to describe the Christian God. That is also inappropriate.2) My opponent states: "For example my opponent claims God makes no sacrifice himself for humanity, until the arrival of Jesus, According to Christianity. Although we can accept Christianity as one authority source, there are other religions who can claim equal authority, and can conclude quite the contrary, as I have shown above in my round two, by quoting the Gita. God indeed is himself the ultimate sacrifice. "Again, my opponent is MIXING RELIGIONS HERE. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS CHRISTIAN SOURCES, SPECIFICALLY BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE. If he wants to make a case about Hinduism, he must first define the Hindu God, and then demonstrate that a Christ-LIKE figure is unnecessary for Hinduism. To my knowledge my opponent simply has not done so - he continually applies the Bhagavad Gita to Christianity. To my knowledge, Hinduism does not make any substantive claim that God IS Love to anywhere near the extent that it defines Christianity. Not only that, my opponent's source does not define the sacrifice as God. In fact, from my opponent's source (not including wikipedia), I cannot even deduce what the Hindu concept of God would be. However, if I include his source in Wikipedia, I find that indeed a CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IS NECESSARY FOR HINDUISM AS WELL:"The sacrifice known as jyotistoma is also Krsna, and He is also themaha-yajna. ". http://www.asitis.com... "Bhakti yoga: (contains 20 verses) In this chapter Krishna glorifies the path of devotion to God. Krishna describes the process of devotional service (Bhakti yoga). ""Purusottama yoga: (contains 20 verses) Krishna identifies the transcendental characteristics of God such as, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence". http://en.wikipedia.org...KRISHNA (not God) IS THE SACRIFICE. KRISHNA IS THE LINK IN HINDUISM FROM GOD TO MANKIND - KRISHNA IS THE ONE WHO EDUCATES HINDUS ON THE HINDU CONCEPT OF GOD. KRISHNA IS THE CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN HINDUISM. 3) My opponent states: "I see no reason why the Christian narrative of God should be used as the only authoritative source, and I make no special reference to the Christian God as being the one true God, therefore I can simply ignore the arguments presented by my opponent as bias to only one version of God"When it comes to the CHRISTIAN GOD, ONLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES DEFINE IT. When it comes to the HINDU GOD, ONLY HINDU SOURCES DEFINE IT. When it comes to the BUDDHIST "GOD", ONLY BUDDHIST SOURCES DEFINE IT.4) My opponent states: "also in my round three I said God must carry certain attributes to be qualified for the title God, such as being supreme. "This was NOT PRESENTED IN ROUND #1. I have no reason to accept this new definition of God when God was already defined in round #1. My opponent is equivocating here.5) My opponent states: "Just because my opponent states a Biblical scripture in which Jesus himself declares himself [sic] as being given ultimate authority, is not enough to convince me that just because it is written in the bible it is true He states. " My opponent apparently did not read one of the verses I sourced: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)The very first verse in the Book of John clearly states that the Word = God = Flesh (Jesus). These were not Jesus's words, these are the words of the Gospel. If you don't believe in the Gospel, then you do not believe in the Christian God.6) My opponent states: "If you ask me, I do not believe Jesus, but I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is that the answer to C. S Lewis claim, is that the answer ultimately rests on faith. A faith believing in what Jesus said was true. "My opponent is waffling on his own position here. He concedes he may be wrong about his position. To the extent that my opponent concedes his position, he concedes this debate. On faith, I agree with my opponent. It is faith in Jesus that determines whether or not someone accepts Jesus as true. It is faith in the Christian God that determines whether or not someone accepts the Christian God as true. It is faith in Buddhism that determines whether or not someone accepts Nirvana as true. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT FAITH IN BUDDHISM THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE ACCEPTS THE CHRISTIAN GOD AS TRUE. I have nothing to add, since my opponent still has not contested any of my conclusions from round #2 and is indeed considering forfeiting this debate, so I will again restate them: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. In my closing statement I will cite I John 4:7-8 and John 3:16, as I am now out of room.