Yeah, that's right! I'm one of those godless heathen non-believers, and I say that your holy book is full of inaccuracies! It's not historically reliable at all, let alone divine and inerrant! Contrary to what all those hard-line conservative fundamentalist wackaloons think, it actually contains numerous-

Wait.

What?

Some of the conservative nut-jobs are with me on this? Those same freakazoids who believe the universe was created 6,000 years ago based on a literal reading of the Bible? They believe that all current versions of the Bible are inaccurate and unreliable?

Yep. The Conservative Bible Project really exists. It's about trying to edit any "liberal bias" out of the Bible, and produce a more perfectly conservative version. One with a message more in line with what Jesus obviously meant to say, which just happens to very neatly align with Andrew Schlafly's own politics.

Wait.

What?

...the fuck?

I mean, I know anything even on a nearby plane to competent rational thought is going to be a non-starter with someone like Schlafly, but this is one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen. It's bad enough when hordes of homophobic bigots use some passage in Deuteronomy to justify what is obviously a personal prejudice against gays, while carefully ignoring the surrounding bits about stoning disobedient children to death. But the one thing fundamentalist Christians have to support their position is the idea that God has provided them with a flawless historical record and set of instructions and guidelines for how to live.

And now he's saying that, because some parts of the Bible imply that God doesn't agree with his perspective in every single regard, the Bible must be wrong. Because he knows what God thinks better than his holy text does.

Jesus Christ.

Wait, maybe Jesus Christ wasn't even his real name after all. Schlafly, if you're reading this, can you leave a comment to let me know if I've been blaspheming wrong all this time? Thanks.

Seriously, look at some of the ways on that list in which the Bible is deemed to be deficient. "Wordiness" is apparently a liberal thing, and because the word "Lord" is so much more concise than "Yahweh", he's getting out the red marker pen. Any parable which doesn't expound the benefits of the free market is obviously a distortion, too. I mean, there's no way Jesus would've favoured any kind of hand-outs. You might think that Jesus wasn't keen on profiteering and rich people, and was pretty big on things like forgiveness, but that's probably because you're still reading the Bible, and so your understanding of Jesus is tainted by all that liberal bias. Throw that rag out, and listen to Andrew Schlafly.

Oh, and some parts he's apparently entitled to just edit out completely. Like that whole "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" bit. That just makes Jesus sound like a pussy. Admittedly, it does go against God's own advice in Leviticus, but if you're going to try and excise all the stuff that contradicts the other stuff, then you're not going to have much left.

Anyway. Bored now.

Hat-tip to PZ.

---

This was first posted on my blog over at Cubik's Rube.