It's kinda ironic, innit, that the only ad hominem attacks I've seen in this thread have all come from LITS him/herself, and mainly against Rainy. I hafta wonder if LITS appreciates the subtle distinction between calling out 'another gospel' and a personal attack against its adherent? The two are not the same.
For any Bible-believing Christian, denying Jesus' deity crosses a red line that instantly identifies it as another gospel. The charge is justified on strict Biblical grounds regardless of the person advocating what is basically the old Arian heresy. Modern versions of Arianism, at least as far as the person of Jesus is concerned, include (inter alia) Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and Unitarians. And yes, they are indeed all cults by any generally accepted definition of the term, whose company LITS apparently prefers.
Again, that's fine. Free will affords LITS that choice. Personally, I'm with the Bible and Athanasius on this one. And so are 100% of the only church that really matters - the universal, invisible church militant known only to God, and which is independent of all denominational affiliations. As Athanasius himself once said, 'Jesus, who I know as my Redeemer, cannot be less than God.'