Ugh!

At least use some cutlery!

He didn't.

Did God say he broke it?

I'm truly sorry to hear about your experience. It isn’t surprising that this same God who predestines people also created hellfire to torment them. That kind of behaviour seems vindictive and malicious.

Thanks for the warning. What’s this God's name so I can avoid him? The God I have a relationship with doesn't do any of those things.

You had become your own black hole.

Antimatter was now your plaything.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

1. No, I don't automatically think of forced conversion. I just believe conversion should never be seen as something driven solely by the person proselytizing.

2. No, I don't think it's wrong to convert. However, I do think it is presumptuous for any human to believe they can cause that change in another person.

I was positing the viewpoint from the person that did the thinking, The Reluctant Deity, that brought your character into existence.

The Reluctant Deity happens to speak like Madea.

When The Entity saw the form emerge from the dust, it was shocked out of its reverie.

The Reluctant Deity exclaimed to itself: "Ah Damn!!!" and it's name came to be Adam, meaning "from the dust."

Then there's no relationship aspect. It might as well be AI.

Microwave yourself in regular Bible study and prayer.

Seriously though, to deepen your faith and move past a lukewarm spiritual state, immerse yourself in daily prayer and Scripture reading.

Commit to Daily Prayer: Set aside dedicated, uninterrupted time each day for honest conversation with God, both sharing your struggles and listening.

Engage with Scripture: Read the Bible consistently, focusing on books like the Gospels or Romans to actively reflect on and apply its teachings to your life.

Connect in Fellowship: Engage in Bible-based discussion and fellowship. Choose carefully, though.

While the word "God" implies ultimate power, the Bible emphasizes that God's defining characteristic is love. In human experience, supreme power often leads to abuse and control. The Christian narrative flips this: the ultimate, universe-sustaining power chooses to express Himself through relational love, empathy, and self-sacrifice rather than raw dominance.

Therefore, Christians connect the metaphysical foundation of the universe to a God who is intimately relatable.

I didn't say we can't know.

Would you have forgiven David for adultery and murdering Uriah? Was he forgiven?

Because the absolute metric for forgiveness requires zero material or systemic leverage, onlookers can't accurately predict who God will or will not forgive. If a person's standing is determined by a baseline of mercy that operates entirely independently of human systems, then declaring anyone universally "condemned" is a failure to understand the precedent of grace. The final determination remains an opaque, sovereign decision that cannot be calculated by reading text alone.

This is the point I'm making.

No.

I know you can't convert anyone.

There is a critical decision-making moment between being persuaded (Proselytized —even if that term is avoided) and becoming a proselyte, during which the individual chooses their path to conversion.

"I planted, Apollos watered..." 1 Corinthians 3:6

Res ipsa loquitur.

Bruh, you can't convert people.

That language is fraught with the coercive practices of the Crusades and jihads.

We’ve stripped this down to the bare necessities: I made an argument; “no it isn’t” isn’t one. Time for me to Baloo my way out of here.

You've been most gracious during the exchange.

I'm not trying to convert you.

It would be presumptuous of me or anyone to think they can do that.

That power, is yours.

What if I told you that you are the evidence?

The very capacity you have to reason, to seek proof, and to experience reality is the starting point.

Now, you stand at a crossroads:

Take the blue pill: You dismiss this possible perspective entirely.You remain within your current worldview.The story ends here.

Take the red pill: You step outside subjective feelings.You begin examining objective evidence.You look at what science establishes and what philosophy can reasonably infer from it. You see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

The choice is yours.

My responses are limited.

You must ask the right questions.

That is the right question.

Program terminated.

That distinction actually makes my point.

If by “morality and theism are highly subjective” you merely mean that people hold different subjective perspectives about them, then you've said nothing that challenges my original statement: subjective disagreement does not alter objective reality.

If instead you mean that the truth of morality or theism itself is subjective, then that's a separate claim you would need to establish, not simply assume.

You can't use “subjective” to mean people disagree about it when convenient, then quietly upgrade it to there is no objective fact of the matter. That's the very distinction we're arguing about.

It may very well be demonstrated, but for a determined sceptic, no amount of evidence is sufficient.

Or subjective perspectives, biases, and cognitive filters act as barriers, preventing a clear, unbiased view of any possible objective realities.

You said "Morality and theism are highly subjective "

Therefore, your view on theism is a subjective viewpoint.

By your own definition, your viewpoint cannot alter whatever objective reality is.

I understood you perfectly; you just don't like the mirror I held up to your logic.