If you so choose and if this applies, then I’d like to know how you make intelligible, “I have a relationship with God”. The bonus challenge would likewise be to support as a factual statement, adding anything to the assertion “God is …”
The reason for the challenge is my frequent notice of people literally using terms that are incoherent as assertions, given the predicate ontology of God as transcendent and ineffable.
To succeed, you must appeal to some, any, theologian you wish but one from each category of “liberal”, “mainline”, and “conservative”. Examples respectively could be, say, Rudolf Bultmann, Daniel Wallace, and R.C. Sproul.
1) Define what the “relationship” is.
2) How you know such a relationship exists; again, through the apologetic of each theologian.
3) Give another theologian posing problems with each of the three views (liberal, mainline, conservative).
For the bonus challenge, any set of premises which entails to your “God is …” conclusion; in other words, a valid argument.
With hearing such easy speak about God, this at least attempts to have the taker exposed to more than private language, how difficult it is for you to find many who know better that will agree with you, and especially to have your own thoughts mean something to others who don’t think like you, rather than group-gladhands.