"Churches present the myth in doctrinal form. For the Catholic Church and most Christian churches, the basic doctrine is the Nicene Creed, and I accept that creed without question. The doctrine cannot contradict science or history, because it is not in the realm of science or history - so Pete's attempts to present doctrine as science and history and Steve's attempts to refute doctrine in terms of science and history, are both futile. But doctrine is not the myth itself, and it is not the Truth. The Judaeo-Christian myth is best presented in the Scriptures and rituals and traditions, as the myths of other denominations are best presented in their own sacred writings and rituals and traditions. But the myth is only a gateway to the object of faith, which is beyond all and is essentially unexplainable (inexplicable)."

Hmm. Unfortunately, this is precisely one of those hazy circumlocutions I was talking about, and you're not getting away with that "Steve wouldn't understand it" line. I "understood it" well enough for the first half of my longish life, you seem to forget. You appear to be saying that doctrine can't be within the realms of science or history. Oh yes it can. Science is not an immovable body of human knowledge. It is a human process and you don't get to put anything outside it, not even God. If you want that kind of immunity from enquiry, your solution is very simple. Predicate your doctrine on truth, the real truth, and stop telling the flock that biblical improbabilities are certainties and stop telling children lies dressed up as fairy stories that they can ditch. They can't. The real, historical, scientific truth is much more wonderful, and much more honest.