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

[FallentoReason]

I agree that you don't always need to know 100% in order to make choices. But we're not talking about choosing between porridge or fried eggs for breakfast. We're talking about a relatively radical life choice with many implications. You don't just delve into any given Holy book unless there's a very, very good reason. Of course, there may be no such reason, since you have told me already that you've grown up in the faith. In that case, what I'm wanting to know of you is different. The adequate question isn't "how did you go from A to B (non-belief to believing)" but rather, have you tried that exercise for yourself? 

If a person is in search of God there is a very good reason to delve into holy books.  

That qualifies as a "good reason", yes.

I've never been an unbeliever, but I've voluntarily put my belief to the test by participating in this forum for three years.  I think that I've confronted all the arguments that are out there including your arguments below.  So yes, I have put my faith to the test.  

I congratulate you for that.

See, until then, what meaningful conversation can we have? Why should I consider Christianity as a possible truth if someone within it can't show me how to get there? It just makes me question how you got there in the first place, with little to no other choice than trivial circumstance. 

The way to get there is to seek God.  You already know that.

I've come up with an original theory regarding seeking God i.e. placing faith in Him, but more specifically, the nature of religious faith itself. I don't know if I should go into it here though.

As for believing the Bible is true - how critical have you been? Did you know that roughly half of Paul's letters are forgeries? That the anonymous Gospel writers seem to be cherry picking the OT in an allegorical fashion, putting things out of context while trying to build a case for Jesus (which then makes you wonder if any of it is historical at all)? That the chronological order of the NT begins with Paul's letters - letters in which he miraculously fails to address any historical fact about Jesus found in the Gospels - letters that use the same language as contemporary mystery cults, with his countless mentions of the "mysteries of Christ Jesus". What mysteries? He was just on Earth doing and explaining! Unless of course we look at other mystery cults of the time in which no single deity was considered to be in the heavens or on Earth, but rather a middle ground, acting as a "heavenly spirit". And while we're talking about cults, have you read up on the rather revealing apologies of the time? Justin Martyr writing in 150A.D? He accuses the cult of Mithras for "having copied our rituals such as the Eucharist, anointing with oil" and a couple of other Catholic things I can't remember off the top of my head. Unlucky for him, the cult of Mithras precedes Christianity by 700 - 1000 years. 

If you consider these things, how close to 100% true would you get?

Yes.  I've considered all these allegations and I've also considered all the allegations of the scholars who disagree with your scholars.  You're making illogical conclusions like inferring that Mithras was performing rituals similar to the Eucharist before the time of Christ just because the cult preceded christianity.

Negative. I'm not inferring anything. I'm simply reading that:

...Justin Martyr made the accusation over 100 years after Christ.

His words, not mine. And I don't see what 100 years changes. 

 The mystery of Christ was that he died for all, not just the Jews.  The Jews thought that he was coming just for them.

Jesus said that many times. Where's the mystery? What's mysterious is that Paul repeatedly has the opportunity to quote Jesus (e.g. teachings from the Sermon on the Mount) but fails over and over again to do so, and instead inserts his own teaching or something inbetween, but never explicitly from what Jesus has said/done. 

 Anyway, if there were other mysteries concerning Christ, what does that have to do with other "mystery cults".

The fact that when you take a step back, Paul just sounds like one more mystery cultists, and it makes sense. He has no knowledge of the deeds of Jesus. His only encounter is a bright light. It sounds to me like his Saviour is a spiritual being - precisely the sort of thing going around during his time. Occam's Razor.

 You're taking a bunch research and opinions of some scholars and not balancing them out research and opinions of other scholars.  Why don't you just say that Jesus didn't really exist, as is the opinion of some scholars.  Sounds like you've worked really hard to build up a case in your mind against christianity.

No, once again, Occam's Razor. The other explanation (that it's all true) simply doesn't stack up. Some more food for thought, a challenge unanswered by anyone here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-30849.html[/quote]