I'm not convinced that your interpretation of what he is saying is correct. It may mean something closer to the idea that he doesn't currently understand the creed in detail but hopes to at one point. In that interpretation he would still believe that the creed reflects truth about reality in some form involving a deity and the deity giving forth some entity which it sacrificed somehow, etc.
That would still represent a significant deviation from what most people have historically thought they were professing, though I suppose less of a "nice-sounding re-write".
Background: Apostles' Creed, Tsuyoku Naritai
Related to: A Parable on Obsolete Ideologies
Just something I thought I might add to the annals of cases where someone tries to re-interpret an old religious text to mean something more acceptable to the modern ear, in contradiction to what most people (especially its contemporaries) think the texts mean. And this is not some random person, but Gene Callahan, who makes sure you understand he holds a doctorate in philosophy, and pretty much makes a career out of defending this and anti-reductionist views in general. Here's the post:
I suggested that this is not what most people mean when they say the Creed, but (surprise) the comment was deleted.
(Yes I know Tsuyoku Naritai is not quite the same as Callahan's interpretation, but it's the closest short LW term for the general idea.)