If we can’t ask the hard questions, what’s the point? If religion isn’t about knowing who God is, knowing who we are, and what our relationship with Him and each other should be, then what is it about? These seem to me to be pretty hard questions. I think Mangetout said it well:
You are right in observing that many people don’t want the hard questions asked; or perhaps more accurately, they don’t want the accepted answers challenged. This may be for a variety of reasons. I think one is as Princhester suggested,
I think there are other reasons as well. One reason is that many religious people find a sense of righteousness from their religion. Their religion affirms to them that they are good people, because they follow the rules of their religion and subscibe to its beliefs. This sense of righteousness isn’t just a “feel good” thing, though, it’s an important part of their self-identity. For these people, challenging the correctness of their religious beliefs is a challenge to their identity and self-worth. If they don’t have a good answer, they don’t respond well.
We could, though, spend a long time talking about the reactions of others and not address the questions ourselves.
As regards your question about Genesis, I would like to start with a few points about hermenuetics (rules for interpreting the Bible, not to be confused with Herman Ootics 
).
First, I agree with Mangetout,
Ron Pierce, at Biola, said that you need to understand what the Bible meant in its original context to the people to whom it was written, then identify what principles were being taught, then apply those principles to our rather different context today.
If I understand you correctly, your question is basically, “Should we understand Genesis as allegory or history, and what do those terms mean anyhow?”
Your Eastern Orthodox friend refers to the stories in Genesis as “sacred myth.” There can be no doubt that several of the stories in Genesis read somewhat like myth, that is, they tell a story and explain how certain things came to be (e.g. why snakes slither, where rainbows came from, etc.). At the same time, they also contain details which are not at all the type of thing one finds in mythology. For example:
[ul]
[li] Genesis list’s Adam’s issue (that is, his descendants). You don’t trace geneologies from non-existant people.[/li][li] The geneologies listed include specific ages. These ages are not assigned any alligorical or mythalogical meaning. Rather, they are recorded the way the writer records other historical facts.[/li][li] In the story of the flood, in addition to times that could be taken symbolically, such as 40 days and 40 nights, we find times and dates that do not appear to have any symbolic meaning. Of particular notice is the author’s detail in specifying some of the dates down to the exact day. This is historical detail, not myth.[/li][/ul]
In light of this, it seems clear to me that the writer of Genesis wrote it as historic record, not as “sacred myth.” The fact that some parts of the story may tie up in nice symbolic bows (e.g. seven days of creation) is not evidence of the author contriving the details. After all, it would not be suprising that the one who created such order in the world (which scientific inquiry is showing to be even greater and more detailed than we ever could have imagined) would create that order in an orderly manner. I don’t think the symbolism that exists in the creation story was contrived by the author, I think it was “contrived” by the Creator when He created because He created with purpose and meaning.
But while the author may bave been writing history, he wasn’t writing science. And if he was writing history, he wasn’t necessarily writing it the way we write history. But one thing seems obvious: history is intended to be a record of what actually happend, not make-believe.
I know this just scatches the surface of the question, but it’s a starting point.