There are those who believe that taking the Bible literally can be a form of satire, and cartoonist R. Crumb is one of them:

PARIS — Subversive US cartoonist Robert Crumb, whose take on the Bible is about to be released worldwide, says people are “totally nuts” for taking the book so seriously for so long.
“I grew to hate the Bible,” he told a press conference for the international launch of “Robert Crumb’s Book of Genesis”, which he called a “gruelling” four year project. The book hits bookshelves in late October in Europe, Brazil and the United States.
“The idea of millions of people taking this so seriously is totally nuts,” he added. “The Bible doesn’t need to be satirised. It’s already so crazy.”
Crumb’s 220-page epic take on the Book of Genesis painstakingly mirrors every twist and turn, from God’s Creation of the world through the meanderings of Noah’s Ark and the adventures of Jacob of the “coat of many colours”.

I’ve looked at some of the drawings, and they are so loyal to the text that had Crumb instead announced that he had found God, he’d have likely been proclaimed a new Jack T. Chick. Via Ann Althouse, here’s a link to Crumb’s pictorial representation of Sodom and Gomorrah.
From a religious perspective, the book violates the Second Commandment:

Certainly from a Jewish perspective, it violates the second of the Ten Commandments. And it won’t go down well with traditional Muslims either. But for Christians, it’s no big deal.

Few Christians have religious objections to Michelangelo’s depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel. But if Crumb thinks the Bible is nuts, his depictions are unlikely to be appreciated, no matter how loyal they may be to the text. Had an atheist made the same version of “The Passion” as Mel Gibson, it would have had a very different reception — on both sides.
Yet isn’t there a paradox here? If we assume the Second Commandment controls depictions of God, wouldn’t it be more binding on believers than on unbelievers?
If Crumb thinks a religious law is nonsense, how can he be said to have violated it?
Here’s the relevant portion of the Second Commandment (which I’ve had a lot of trouble interpreting:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
— Exodus 20: 4 (KJV)

If you take that literally, it kind of ruins things for art and photography.
But if you don’t take it literally, then how slippery is the slope?
(I don’t worry about these things too much, because even though I’m not an atheist where it comes to belief in God or gods, I have serious logical problems with the idea of God as text.)