charlie, although this should be a discussion all of its own, I’ll say this here: That many Aggados are not to be taken for their literal, translated meaning is indisputable. However, we must draw from the context to discern if it was indeed meant to be taken as a physical story. Many times, the Aggada is relating an actual story, while some details are conveying something other than its basic meaning. To say a blanketing, Aggada isn’t to be taken for its literal meaning, is in many instances a dismissive statement used as an excuse.
The fact that you would apply it to more places than I would cannot be held against you, but I can say that I disagree. The Medrash about Avraham is clearly being said as a fact, a Nisayon, a danger and a Ness. On the other hand, the Medrash about Kafa Aleihem Har Kegigis (holding the mountain over their head) does have the sound of meaning more than an uprooted mountain suspended in the air.
You actualy did not make it clear if you do indeed take the above mentioned Medrashim literaly or not. I understand that you were trying to make a certain point — a point that you mention often. I am addressing that point. Again, not to argue with your premise, in general, but to say that you are supposed to read into it to see when it is meant to be taken literaly.
An example, is when you applied this to a Gemara that condemed some behavior as Chayav Misa (if I remember correctly). That is not a story, where you can say that Chazal were giving you an emotional picture of what in essence took place. They are telling you how they look at something, and how bad it is. Even if you won’t take the Misa part so literally, but you do understand that it is actually that bad. (and so on)