Help me understand the non-literallist position

There seems to 2 general camps in the christian morally superior crowd. (1) The literalists who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and (2) the non-literalists who believe the bible is a collection of fairy tales.It's easy to understand the literalist interpretation. That's what the religion is based on.I'm having a hard time understanding the non-literalist position. If you believe these stories didn't actually happen the way they did, then how do we know what to believe in and what not to believe in? More simply put, is there a list of stuff to be taken literally and stuff not to be taken literally from the bible? How do non-literalists reconcile with the christian religion if they believe the bible is a collection of fairy tales?

As written I'm not inclined to promote this topic.I suggest reading the following threads:
Why read the Bible literally?
Why read the Bible literally: take twoThey might give you some ideas for a more specific topic to address.Right now this OP sounds like you're looking for religious counseling, not a debate.Thanks
AdminPD

And where did I say I was going to debate?And yes, point me to a thread that talks about literal bible reading even though I specifically said this topic is about non-literal bible reading.Let me pose my question in another way.I am an outsider. I take a look at your religion. You claim to follow christ and christ's words. But then you also say you believe christ's words are a collection of fictional stories.To me, the literal interpretation of the bible makes a heck of a lot more sense. That's where you get your info on god and christ. If you consider the bible just a collection of fictional stories, then where's your source of info on god and christ?

Did you read the threads? The discussion gets into both issues.This is a debate forum.Thanks
AdminPD