The odd thing, Anonymous - is that I think, like several other non-fundamentalist posters 'round these parts, you and I would get along famously over coffee.
You're addressing the ten questions, it's true - but for the sake of labels... tell me if I'm off in what I'm reading here, as I catch up?
- You say God does not, essentially, directly or miraculously intervene in the world.
- You say that the bible does not really consist of literal stories of miraculous work, but rather is a complex allegory that should be considered figuratively.
- You say, essentially, that the problems largely posed by the 10 Questions aren't a problem if the bible is viewed from the perspective of allegorical truth, and that the message underlying the basic biblical values is worthy.
I would wager you would likely agree if I posited that Jesus likely existed, but was not a miracle worker; he was a philosopher whose actions were inflated dramatically by word-of-mouth after his death. I'd go out on a limb and say that, if you've read it, you likely agree with the interpretation presented in the Jeffersonian Bible. I'll be certain and say one of the fine points of theology with which you divorce yourself, in reference to the Mother Church, is Transubstantiation.
If all of the above is true - then. Well. You're a Deist. And, essentially, the 10 questions no longer apply to you. You believe in a noninterventionist God who essentially set the world in motion, and a 'prophet' that was actually a fairly advanced thinker for his time who offered good advice on how to live in the world. You see Lao Tse and Jesus as functionally equivalent (you mention Taoist similarity to Christian philosophy - and I wholly agree), and Lao Tse was by no means a miracle-max of the ancient world.
Atheists and Deists, as a rule, have no debate. You believe in a God that does not actually offer evidence, and is not directly active in the world; we believe that there's no god, but we can't honestly say the Deist God, the divine watchmaker, isn't out there somewhere. You believe not that Jesus was a divinely mandated messiah, but rather a man with a darned good idea, whose philosophies of peace, understanding, and harmony are worthy - much as I, who am an atheist, think Lao Tse had a heck of a lot of good ideas, and do my darnedest to live up to them.
Am I off here? Does this seem to fit?