Never seen the play- THAT is a great line!
Weellll…
It’s unusual, but I wouldn’t call this particular case outrageous. They’re not at all the first to suggest that the story in question (the one about the adulteress about to be stoned–“he who is without sin” and all that…) was inserted later. The story skips around in different very early copies of the books of the NT–sometimes even appearing in different books altogether. (IIRC it’s usually found in Luke, but sometimes is found at John. And sometimes it’s within the book, sometimes tacked on at the end.)
Conservatives would usually say leave it in, I agree. But I don’t think its outrageous for a conservative to say otherwise. Belief in Inerrancy of the original documents doesn’t equate to or imply belief in Inerrancy of any modern edition. (Not saying Inerrancy is a sensible doctrine, just saying what it doesn’t imply.)
ETA: It’s a little ridiculous, though, to say this is a particularly “liberal” passage while not characterizing a lot of other NT passages about withholding judgment as “liberal” as well.
Read my earlier post. This is exactly what I said.
No it’s not. I said it’s usually found in Luke, you said it’s usually found in John.
You were right of course. :p;)
ETA: Weird, I can’t find your earlier post! I know I read it a few minutes ago…!
I don’t say a thing about where it’s located. And, yeah, I know it’s part of the text of Luke (and not invariably found there). But I was commenting on what people wrote earlier.
Oh, for some reason I read one of Polycarp’s posts thinking it was your post.
Never mind.
I want you to go to your room and think about what you’ve done.
We’ll have a little talk later.
You can read the play here.
I wonder how Conservipedia is going to “edit” this:
Luke 16: 19-31:
Acts 2: 42-45:
Acts 4: 32-37:
Too easy!
Just claim the camel/eye of needle part was needless Greek metaphor that is lost in translation. 
I don’t think it’s a hoax site, but I don’t think it’s got a lot to do with conservatives in the mainstream sense.
Why can’t it be what it appears to be? - the brainchild of a lone nutjob who happens to have his own personal definition of ‘conservative’ - that happens to resemble an insane caricature of the views of some genuine conservatives?
Or better . . . I read in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible that the medieval Church preached there was a gate into Jerusalem called “the Needle,” which was too low for a fully-laden camel, but you could get the camel through it if you unloaded some of the cargo. IOW, a rich man can get into Heaven if he gives a substantial share of his wealth to the Church. 
Dubious at best: See Snopes, below.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=33;t=001077;p=1
"Therefore, thou shalt construct large needles, and grind thine camels before passing them though."
See? It’s not about rich people; it’s about the proper method of camel disposal.
There is tongue-in-cheek article at Salon about it…
Not that settles anything even if it weren’t satirical they wouldn’t be the first media outlet to fall for the perils of Poe’s Law.
Conservapedia is the creation of (and perforce closely watched and edited by, after all that prankery ;)) Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis. If he’s not in the mainstream of movement conservatism, who is?
Conservatives have been thinking outside the box on this one possibly as far back as the 9th century. The ‘eye of a needle’ was suggested as a somewhat small gate in Jerusalem, hence an unencumbered and suitably grovelling camel could make it through, problem solved! Alas this ideal solution is skewered by the inconvenient truth that absolutely no evidence or reference exists to such a structure. Still we mustn’t allow mere facts to cloud religio-political thinking.
Another interpretation hinges on the fact that the original word for “camel” there is very similar to the word for “rope”. Sure, it’d be tough to thread a rope through a needle, but you could at least picture it happening.
The problem there is that it’d be very hard for a mistranslation to end up going that way rather than the other. If it were originally “rope”, you’d expect a translator or transcriber to go “Wait, what? A camel?”, and double-check the original. But if it were originally “camel”, it’s not too hard to picture a transcriber thinking "No, that can’t be right, they must have meant “rope”.
I don’t know anything about either of these characters, but am I not right in thinking that American political conservatives in general do not wish conservapedia to be seen as accurately representing them?