No, I totally get that. I'm an atheist too, so obviously the appeal isn't the theological consistency, but the way that message has been shaped over the centuries. All the history, the revisions, the political and theological debates, the way you can see it morph over time as it's passed down through the generations...to me, that's a feature, not a bug. No other book in human history has had such a unique relationship between the text and the context.

When I was an angsty teenager, I used to get really worked up over the fact that Christians were casually telling me I was going to Hell yet had no idea how indefensibly evil they sounded. They weren't trying to be mean or aggressive. They just had never considered the possibility that torturing me forever is kind of a dick move, and were genuinely confused when I tried to explain this basic concept.

Then I actually read the Bible, and realized "Holy shit, virtually none of the things they talk about are in here. They were citing fanfiction the whole time."

To be fair, the Bible As Lit class I took in community college had a huge influence on me. My professor was a delightful old gay man who was active in the community, sang in his church choir, and became a mentor who got me my first writing jobs.

And the central theme of his class was the sheer number of ways to read, interpret, and respond to the actual text of the Bible: Historically, culturally, editorial, etc.

So I really don't read the Bible and think in terms of loopholes or inconsistencies or human interference. That's just part of the charm.