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

[Lek]

Paul never seems to have any connection with the Gospels. When mentioning Jesus' birth, he doesn't say it was a virgin birth and that it's the fulfillment of prophecy. Hell, he doesn't even know the name of Mary. To him, it's just "a woman". He may as well be talking allegorically. He's also quick to say that his teachings came from no man, but from Christ Jesus. But isn't Jesus a man? It is clear as day that he's not aware of what Jesus is doing in the neighbourhood.

They all knew Jesus was a man. Paul was embracing the fact that he was also God.

Yes, I will have to disagree. Technically speaking, I'm an agnostic atheist. The root word "gnostic" is a claim to knowledge, where gnostics claim to know something and of course a-gnostic is the denial of such knowledge. You can have agnostic Christians (which I believe to be the more honest position) who say they believe in God, but can't know for sure he exists. In my case, I personally believe it's also honest to be an agnostic when being an atheist, because to be a gnostic atheist somehow means you know for sure God doesn't exist. But the only way to justify that is to literally *be* God - be all-knowing such that you've effectively looked under every stone in the universe and beyond, and know for sure God isn't anywhere. 

I would like to think I'm doing something constructive. Being agnostic, I find it easy to value the contemplation of ideas that don't line up with my beliefs (read my signature below). In the past on this forum, I've challenged atheists on here with ideas that aren't usually the first pick for atheists. I try to push people to find some sort of integrity between their responses and their alleged beliefs.

Ok. I'll buy that.