There is (can be) a difference between figurative language and a fable. Such language you cited above is written in figurative language obviously meant to convey a somewhat allegorical meaning. But that doesn't mean everything in the Old Testament is allegorical; and it certainly doesn't mean you can pick and choose which is allegorical and which is literal simply because in some stories it would defy logic to assume the latter. An idiom such as "I will make you a fisher of men" is in stark contrast to a quote like this one from Deuteronomy (17:12 NLT):

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel."

Or

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. " (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

There's no fishermen or 'stars falling from the sky' in those quotes.

Indeed, but are these words actually the will of God, or simply laws codified by over-zealous Israelites of the time?

For example, Exodus 21:15 and 21:17 says that any child who hits or swears at his parents should be killed. Rabbis have argued for centuries about whether such an extreme penalty was *ever* put into place. It may have been written into the Torah, but there's no evidence this penalty was ever effected - an analogy here would be the UK having the death penalty on its books for certain crimes right up until the 1990s, but never actually enacting it after the 1960s.

And we must be careful of how we interpret language, too. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is often quoted as an example of a fairly brutal system of justice - wasn't it Gandhi who said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"?

However, looked at in context, it makes much more sense - it's talking about appropriate penalties and compensation. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Exo 21:24) means if someone hits you and knocks a tooth out, the maximum penalty you can extract legally is to knock his tooth out; you can't murder him simply because he hit you, all you're allowed to do is hit him back. In fact, you don't *have* to exact the punishment - compensation will do instead. Indeed, Exo 21:27 - in the same section talking about "eye for eye" - makes it clear that the compensation even applies to slaves/servants (the Hebrew makes no distinction between the two terms). If you hit your slave and knock his tooth out, you have to let him go free. In a part of the world and a time in history where slavery was pretty much universal, this probably represented the most liberal code of law around at the time.

The "pick and choose" hypocrisy makes Christians look like liars.... oh yeah, THEY ARE!!!!!!!

No one knows if there is a God or not. Stop pretending.

So you admit that you don't know God now??
Interesting.

"Christian" does not necessarily imply "biblical literalist".

Did God not give us the ability to reason and think logically?
Isn't it somewhat insulting to God to NOT employ those gifts He's given us?

That's about all the "evidence" I need to know such stories as a guy being swallowed by a whale and then barfed back up a few days later are NOT intended to be taken literally.

God has given us the ability to think and reason. However, the story of Jonah showes that God has complete authority over His creation. If in 1945 I told you about the internet, you would have though that I was out of my mind, yet here we are. You do not take the Bible literally because somewhere along the road you decided that God was not who He said that He is. If God and reach into my heart and change me from who I was to who I am, If this same God could speak the world into existence, then why is it so hard to think that God could direct a big fish to swollow a man and then at His command set him free? How big is God too you?