Much has been said about Nicholas Kristof's recent NYT piece critical of Christians who actually believe what the Bible says about Jesus: the Virgin Birth and Resurrection mentioned specifically, IIRC.
Back in 2000, when I was looking for an alternative to Unitarian Universalism (due to political, not religious, differences), I briefy considered nineteenth-century-style American Unitarianism as an alternative. There is a group active in reviving that, restoring religion to Unitarianism. Unfortunately, though it claims to be Christian, it specifically denies several fundamental doctrines: the deity of Christ, the Atonement, and several others. I was in this mode of thinking for about six months, but had this gnawing feeling in the back of my mind - there is no foundation here - just inchoate human thought. The feeling just worsened when someone in the group asked me to read a book by John Shelby Spong. Even as a Unitarian Universalist (well I fudge here, I was reading the New Testament again by this time, and beginning to believe it), I found his work repugnant, but I guess that would be natural for someone who had come to a point where religious liberalism had to be fled as quickly as possible.
It all became settled in my mind when I read the New Testament again, and considered the books as written by eyewitnesses, or those who could speak to eyewitnesses (testimony of the early Church Fathers was an excellent apologetic here). I realized that if Jesus was who He claimed to be, then His birth, His miracles, His Resurrection, would be nothing amazing at all, just God interacting with the creation He made by His own Word. No contradiction between reason and faith as far as I'm concerned. It's completely reasonable to believe that a machine-maker could alter the operation of a machine he designed and made himself.