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

You are playing unfairly and using semantics You begin by saying you want to argue for a figure LIKE Christ, Then you argue for the actual Biblical Christ and any other figure who is like Christ. This is where you are confusing the debate. Either you are arguing against the Biblical Christ or not. I do not see why you have to include other figures as being like Christ, when my contention is that Chris should not be be elevated to God status. You say you wish to reject my definition of God as supreme, Ok So you reject the Christian God is supreme, That makes the Christian God subordinate to another entity. If God is not supreme or the highest in rank, then somebody is higher and deserves the title instead. I do not see why my opponent claims only the Christian God is applicable to this debate, I never once refer to the Christian God as being the ultimate God. I only state God is the creator of the cosmos and is highly intelligent. and further state God in the very least in supreme. If Jesus is God as you wish to claim, you must prove how he created the Cosmos, not just referring to Biblical scripture and say things like in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word is God. That is humbug. I want to see hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is responsible for creating the Cosmos. I want hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is the highest in authority all over the Cosmos, Not just references from a Biblical narrative. I could simply counter argue with Hinduism, which is what I was actually doing, not to claim it as factual, but to show that other narratives have similar claims. What makes Jesus so special in comparison. My contention is, I believe in God so the story of the Christ is un-necessary to have a relationship with God. 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. That is absurd. To think the Christ is necessary to reach God is preposterous. We already agree that God exists, so if God exists, he does not need any assistance or for anybody to speak on his behalf and neither is anybody equal to God. What Jesus is actually doing, is stealing Gods limelight. instead of people having a relationship with the creator, they are instead diverted to praying to a man that once lived and claimed to die for us, Even if his claim that he died for us was the intention of Jesus, it does not necessarily make it true. Only according to the Christian religion did God not offer any sacrifice for humanity until Jesus, but other religions claim the contrary, as I pointed out, in Hinduism God is the actual sacrifice. Certain parts of Hinduism claim Krisna is God, who incarnated into a man, similar to the story of Jesus, if my opponent can not believe Krisna is God, then why should I accept Jesus was. I make no special case for the Christian God as being THE TRUE GOD. This is only my opponents opinion, I hold no such opinion. Jesus is not worthy of being equal to God. simply because he never portrayed any such feats a God is able to perform, Such as creating the cosmos or even a planet within the cosmos. Jesus did however turn water into wine, and walk on water, heal the sick and raise the dead. all of these feats are performed by modern day magicians, such as Dynamo who turns a bottle of coke into a fanta and vice a versa, Dynamo walks across the river Thames in broad daylight in front of hundreds of spectators. Some people think he is God. But he unlike Jesus, admits it is nothing but illusion. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... . http://www.thesun.co.uk... Also healing the sick is easily achieved with the use of stooges, I have no way of knowing if Jesus really raised the dead, but I am sure some magician somewhere can convince unwitting bystanders it's possible. It's interesting how people can be easily deceived. Jesus is only a man who performed some magic and convinced people he is God. But It is clear he is not God and should not be assumed so, no more than any other figure or character should be assumed so. Jesus is an impostor who assumes the identity of another God. I thank my opponent for taking this debate, althoguh I think he uses to much semantic by claiming to argue for a figure LIKe Christ instaed of trying to just argue the case for christ. It seems he would like to have his cake and eat it.