Darn it! After twenty years of thinking I was a Christian, Paul's pointed out I'm not.
Damn it!
There was me thinking it was about following Jesus. Thinking it was about obeying His commands. But no. It's all about whether you take Genesis 1 literally.
So, Paul. Suppose I take Genesis 1 literally. Of course, I now have to take many statements in Genesis 2 as being non-literal. So I've picked and chosen. Or I could take Genesis 2 literally, in which case I have to scratch my head over Genesis 1. Which do I choose? Seeing as I can't "pick and choose", how do I decide which way to go?
I find "Yes there are parts of the Bible which are written in a symbolic way. Yet there is nothing in the creation account to suggest it is symbolic. !" a particulary interesting statement. You see, we have here a poetic device, including a refrain "Evening passed and morning came, that was the nth day". We have a structure of three days of preparation followed by three of infilling. We follow this up with a narrative (conflicting in the literal interpretation) about people called "man" and "mother of all", involving trees with fruit like "life" and "knowledge", and a talking snake. Now I don't know what kind of world you inhabit, but these features scream "symbolic" in letters of neon, eight feet high, to me.