How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian?

[FallentoReason]

The multiple writers of Genesis (there is evidence of 4 traditions, 2 of which got melded together into "Genesis") are either being poetic, or historical. If it's poetic, then there's room for all sorts of allegorical interpretations, but then there's the awkward contradiction of the already contradicting couple of lineages leading from A&E to Jesus, the contradiction being how you can possibly descend from an allegory? If it's historical, then that implies truths and matter-of-facts. And considering it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it seems like A&E lacked the metaphysics of ethics until they ate from it, by which time it was too late. It can't be that the tree merely gave them knowledge of the consequences, because if it did, that would imply that A&E could of had ethical metaphysics - they would have subscribed to deontology, the belief that right and wrong are inherently right and wrong regardless of the consequences. They would have to be deontologists since they precisely lack the knowledge about consequences. But see, that can't be, because their metaphysics would have been incomplete. To be a deontologist is to deny consequentialism. To be a deontologist, one accepts right and wrong in spite of the consequences.

According to the bible, God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree and he did.  He disobeyed God.  The entire bible attests to that including Jesus himself.  Why are you trying to complicate such a simple issue?  I can understand if you just don't believe it, but why go through all these gyrations?

No one is denying that. The issue is that God gave a moral choice to someone who can't morally choose just yet, because God made it that way.

It's a tremendously complicated issue, but not for my beliefs.