A really simple question, the title says it all really. Just to provide some background as to what I'm on about:
I was raised Roman Catholic. As, I suspect, many of you know, the Catholics and Protestants have had their differences throughout history. Both "groups" consider themselves being Christians, but disagree on some of the interpretations of the Scripture.
However, as far as I know, none of the major Christian doctrines uses a Bible that contains more than the 4 Gospels (Mathew, John, Lucas and Mark). The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is left out.
The way I see it, throughout the history of Christianity, a selection of scriptures has been made to form the Bible as we know it today.
I'm not interested in sparking a historical debate on when these Gospels were written, who wrote them and what makes Gospel A suited for the Bible, and why Gospel B is not.
This fact just gives me the impression that various people and institutions, for whatever reasons, cherry-picked scriptures, in a way. Perhaps because the contents\, in particular of the Gospel according to Thomas, was deemed dangerous in its day.
If selecting, and cherry-picking was OK back then, why would I not be allowed to call myself a Christian, while at the same time disbelieving in parts of the Bible that I feel are dated, and in some cases proven wrong?
Note that with "proven wrong" I mean: I feel as though I have been presented with sufficient evidence to accept that what is written in the Bible is incorrect. If you don't feel the same way about these passages, then that is entirely up to you. Again, as with the subject of the various books of the Bible being historic accounts: I don't want to go into any of those things.