> That's not reading.

My point exactly. Nor are we legitimately allowed to make the Bible say whatever we want it to say.

> What standard should we use? What would be signs of divine inspiration?

Great question. In the Bible, God confirmed His messages with signs to confirm that it was from Him (say, the burning bush or making Moses's hand leprous). These miracles don't have any durative evidence, so there's no way for us to do a science experiment on them, but it confirm for Moses that he wasn't just hallucinating. So also with Jesus walking on the water on changing water to wine.

We're left to evaluate the writers who wrote, "Dude, I was THERE. I saw it with my own eyes." We have to evaluate the integrity and credibility of the writers.

I have some family who now live in Costa Rica, and several years ago my wife and I were there. While walking through a national forest we saw an agouti cross the trail. I grabbed for my phone to take a picture, but he was gone as quickly as he was there. Should people believe me that I saw it? My wife was there, too, so there are two of us. But should people believe us? I have no evidence. It comes down to whether I am an honest and reliable source of information.

These people who wrote the Bible claim to have messages from God that were confirmed by signs. They claim to have seen these things. There's no way to go back and take a picture. I have to decide on the integrity of the writer and the reliability of the writings.

Secondly, we evaluate such things by whether others, who are also reliable have had the same kinds of experience. Sure, every village has an idiot and we can always blame religious experience on mental illness—but when people across the globe have the same experiences over the course of centuries, one has to wonder.

For instance, right now there are hundreds of Muslims, from different locations and they don't even know about each other, claiming to have visions of Jesus that say similar things. Are they all hallucinating by a script? That's unlikely.

If there is a God, we might reasonably expect that there would be some contact and communication with humans. Many claim to have experienced this phenomenon.

Richard Swinburne writes: "What are we supposing? An experience is a conscious mental going-on. Experiences can be effects of reality (I think I hear a car outside the window, and there is one) or effects of sensation (I think I hear a car outside the window, but there isn’t one). Into which category do religious experiences fall? It could be either: (1) God or an angel may actually appear to me, or (2) I may have a sensation of 'the room going around' or of 'a timeless reality outside myself.' Sometimes the car appears to moving when it is not; sometimes it actually is. What constitutes religious experience? It is an epistemic event where the subject is metaphysical. Experiences can be public (shared by others) or private. One is no less or more legitimate than the other. The important question is the legitimacy and validity of these experiences.

"Philosophers sometimes claim that an experience is evidence from nothing beyond itself, and therefore religious experience has no evidential value. Quite obviously, if you literally walk into a table that is physically there and raise a bruise on your thigh, there is good evidence for the table and your experience with it. It is also verifiable that your experience of reading what I have written is both rational and valid. Perception is how we process reality. In the absence of special considerations, experiences can be taken as genuine, and there is no rational reason to isolate religious experiences as being in a different category. There are substantial grounds to believe in the existence of God. It is intuitively right to take the way things seem to be as the way they are.

"Efforts to restrict religious experience from validity are either unjustified or unsuccessful."

He obviously says a lot more, but I don't want to bore you with a quote that drones on. What are the signs of divine inspiration? Usually that God confirms the message with a phenomenon, that the experience has credibility, that it is confirmed by others, and that it turns out to be reliable and true.

> So what you are saying with this statement is that the animals in the zoo are fun for children to see, right?

No.

> Am I really allowed to read your statement in any way I wish if language means anything and if communication can be effective?

That's not reading.

> Ah, but these people claim not only divine involvement but also divine inspiration, and that's what we must honestly evaluate.

We, I don't agree that we must, but it does sound like a good idea. What standard should we use? What would be signs of divine inspiration?

> Of course we are. You are hereby free to read any book in any way you wish.

So what you are saying with this statement is that the animals in the zoo are fun for children to see, right?

The question is: Am I really allowed to read your statement in any way I wish if language means anything and if communication can be effective? I say no.

> Like all of these forms of writing, it was written by people and has no special claim to divine involvement.

Ah, but these people claim not only divine involvement but also divine inspiration, and that's what we must honestly evaluate. The Bible has many similarities with other forms of writing, but the special claims is where we must evaluate the evidence at hand. You are remiss to casually cast it aside without proper assessment, or you're guilty of bias.

> Unfortunately, Christians cannot seem to agree on what it is.

I agree that there are a lot of debates out there. Is there a text you'd like to specifically discuss?

> As with all writing, we know we are not free to read it as we wish.

Of course we are. You are hereby free to read any book in any way you wish.

> The Bible is no different from a letter, a historical document, a science text, or a play by Shakespeare.

I agree. Like all of these forms of writing, it was written by people and has no special claim to divine involvement.

> The Bible also has a proper way to be interpreted.

Unfortunately, Christians cannot seem to agree on what it is.

As with all writing, we know we are not free to read it as we wish. There are common and consensual understandings in culture and academia that make language work. We take words to mean what they mean in the culture of the era or how the author has identified to define them. We have to understand words in the context of their culture, historical era, and in the context of the sentence in which they are used. We understand sentences in the context of the paragraph, and paragraphs in the context of the sections. We can use these grammatical and literary tools to discern the viewpoint of the author and the thesis of his work. We understand words or phrases to be figures of speech when taking them literally doesn't make sense (as in if I were to call you a "clever fox").

The Bible is no different from a letter, a historical document, a science text, or a play by Shakespeare. It's how language works. For instance, if I can't assume that you are understanding even this post because you either intrinsically know how language works or are able to use these tools to figure it out (what I mean by what I'm saying), then all communication is worthless. But we know it's not. I can trust and assume you can understand my post, because you know these rules.

So it is with the Bible. Just as a science text has a way it was meant to be understood and uses words and sentences accordingly, we can both read that science text and understand what it is saying. So also any literature professor can walk you through Shakespeare's Macbeth and analyze his plot development, nuances, and character psychology. It is so with the Bible. The Bible also has a proper way to be interpreted. The problem with the Bible is that it has many detractors who willingly and intentionally distort it, and the multiplication of these distortions has created cultural confusion and even disdain. And yet in truth, despite what irresponsible people have foisted on the biblical text to deprecate it, the Bible has a proper way to be interpreted and can be understood.

> The Bible has a proper way to be interpreted,

How do you know, and how do you know what it is?

> Still, if people can relate to him in all those other ways, surely you can agree that painting him white for “relatability” is unnecessary?

I agree that it's unnecessary. Some people find it helpful, but hopefully, taken in the right way, it shouldn't be offensive. It's not that Jesus can be whatever we want Him to be; rather, it's that Jesus finds a point of connection with everyone.

> only to continue committing other sins without remorse

I agree. There's far too much hypocrisy, double standards, and turning a blind eye to one's own sins while condemning the sins in others.

My brother made an interesting comment about this conversation: "How often in recent years have many felt the necessity of picturing Jesus with secondary racial characteristics that match their own? After centuries of European Jesuses, we now have black Jesuses, Asian Jesuses, and Hispanic Jesuses. All of these subtly or not so subtly convey the idea that if Jesus is not like me, I cannot identify with Him. While the Incarnation did involve Jesus becoming like us, the important thing is not that we identify with Him, but that He identified with us, and this has nothing to do with external physical characteristics. Such portrayals focus attention on the wrong aspects of the Incarnation, and teach people that what makes Jesus worthy of our attention is how He looked."

> It shouldn't tell different people different things, but it can mean different things to different people.

Yeah I guess all it “tells” people is whatever is explicitly written on the page. So for all intents and purposes, this is what I meant when I said it “tells” people different things.

> We identify with Jesus because of the nobility of His heart, the compassion in the way He treats people, and the wisdom of His responses to people[etc.]

That’s awesome. Those are great qualities to relate to. I also think Jesus is a great guy, and if more people modeled their lives after his, the world would be a better place. Still, if people can relate to him in all those other ways, surely you can agree that painting him white for “relatability” is unnecessary? And therefore if you do paint him white, it begs the question: “WHY?” There was a reason for that choice.

> only if you ignore all the content of the Bible will you conclude that homosexuality is OK.

I 100% agree. That was my point, in fact (not to mention a considerable part of why I left Christianity. I agree that God does not like homosexuality, so I decided to not like God). Some really homophobic Christians spend all their energy shouting that homosexuality is a sin, only to continue committing other sins without remorse (in other words, they don’t care about what the bible says, they only care about their own values). Other gay and gay-accepting Christians blatantly ignore what the bible says on that matter, but still follow other parts of the bible (in other words, they don’t care about what the bible says, they only care about their own values).

> Many people now recognize rightfully that Jesus was not of European descent.

Sure, I agree that many do, I would even guess that the majority do. So why don’t they do something about it? Again, it’s such a quick fix. Maybe only 10% of self-identifying Christians would actually care. But if they get so upset about a more closely historically accurate Jesus that they reject the message of Christianity, do you even want them to identify as Christians in the first place? That seems like they need further conversion anyways.

> The bible tells different people different things all the time

The Bible has a proper way to be interpreted, but it has endless applications. It shouldn't tell different people different things, but it can mean different things to different people.

> Wanting to see “someone like me” in a historical figure who is objectively not like you in this regard (skin color) definitely qualifies as “cultural comfort” in my book

Skin color has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't. We identify with Jesus because of the nobility of His heart, the compassion in the way He treats people, and the wisdom of His responses to people.

You'll notice that everyone wants a piece of Jesus. Hindus consider Him an avatar. Buddhists consider Him enlightened. Muslims consider His a prominent prophet. Many people regard Him as an admirable teacher.

This is why we want to see ourselves in Jesus and Jesus in ourselves. He suffered nobly, was filled with wisdom, and treated people with compassion.

> And it’s the same as the (especially newer) Christians who ignore all of the content in the bible that says homosexuality is not okay.

I know this is a different conversation, but only if you ignore all the content of the Bible will you conclude that homosexuality is OK.

> It seems like Christianity just reflects what any particular small group of Christians wants it to reflect

To some extent this is true, but it shouldn't be. Christianity was never intended to be "whatever I want it to be and whatever makes me comfortable." It's a distortion of Jesus and Christianity.

> If all the Churches across America were to change their depiction of Jesus to a brown-skinned man overnight, I expect that there would be at least a small uprising.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. This is the 2020s, not the 1950s. Many people now recognize rightfully that Jesus was not of European descent.

> Shouldn’t Christianity hold fast to the truth and a set of ideals, rather than adapting to what makes the masses comfortable?

Absolutely. Yes, yes, yes.

The bible tells different people different things all the time. Clearly the majority of Christians didn’t get the memo that it’s not Kosher to depict Jesus.

Wanting to see “someone like me” in a historical figure who is objectively not like you in this regard (skin color) definitely qualifies as “cultural comfort” in my book. It’s the same as the (especially older) Christians who harp on the evils of homosexuality but ignore other basic sins enumerated. And it’s the same as the (especially newer) Christians who ignore all of the content in the bible that says homosexuality is not okay.

It seems like Christianity just reflects what any particular small group of Christians wants it to reflect. In that regard it’s no different from any other religion.

If all the Churches across America were to change their depiction of Jesus to a brown-skinned man overnight, I expect that there would be at least a small uprising. Why? Because their culture isn’t comfortable with a non-white Jesus. It shouldn’t matter what people “want to see” in their Christianity—should it? Shouldn’t Christianity hold fast to the truth and a set of ideals, rather than adapting to what makes the masses comfortable?