OK, one more time.
1. Ad hominem arguments are not helpful. I do not "hate mankind" (i.e. a misanthrope). I do not have a 'problem with my mother', except that I can't see her anymore. She died of Alzheimers three years ago.
2. Man-made doctrines involving long-dead women cannot provide 'maternal influence'. That is why God gave us mothers -- and their 'maternal influence.'
3. I am not sure why it is 'so funny' that Christians base "all beliefs on Scripture". But that is true. And the reason is a lack of any other reliable evidence of the Person of Jesus Christ.
4. Your statement that Christians "ignore the facts of who assembled the [B]ible" contains a false premise, i.e. that some authorative person or group did that -- and they didn't. The manuscripts which circulated in the late first century and early second were not 'assembled' but rather individual letters. It was only when other non-authorative 'church' writings began to circulate in the mid-second century when Marcion, a bishop of Rome (oops :-)) began making 'helpful' (infalliable? :-)) changes to the original ciruclating letters which are now the New Testament in an effort to further his view that the OT was opposed to the NT. (Boy, does Marcion have some spiritual heirs in the RCC or what? And what about that funny guy, Mohammed? He sure tried to make some 'helpful' changes too.)
In any event, other groups of Christians began accumlating the writings of the Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline letters (or those thought to be his), even the catholic epistles (don't get your hopes up, fellows, that's 'catholic' with a small "c").
Some of the second century Christians had other non-apostolic books which they liked and thought ought to be authorative. [For example, Origen really liked the Shepherd of Hermas, a non-scriptural book found in some of our earliest codexes such as Codex Sinaiticus.]
[BTW, you RCC guys would really like the "Shepherd of Hermas" because there are lots of visions with women giving all kinds of authorative instruction (and you might even say 'maternal influence') and there is even one little passage that seems to presage the development of a concept of 'purgatory'. Unfortunately, poor Hermas' vision only allowed one, repeat one, major sin to each Christian after becoming a Christian and you can't really make much of a market for indulgences if each Christian only gets one sin to be worked off in some 'purgatory'-like setting. So poor ol' Hermas' work product fell into disuse.]
But the important point here is that the writings which ultimately became the NT came about because of consensus amoung Christian beleivers and all, repeat all, were written (or, more accurately, thought to be written) by the apostles of the first century. Other good and thoughtful writings which were circulating at the same time (which today we call "the apostolic fathers") were excluded by common consent. No meetings, no conventions, no caucuses, no 'papal bulls.' Just good and faithful followers of the Person of Christ making the obvious choice that those closest in time and affiliation to Jesus Himself (or the Apostles, such as Mark to Peter) were reliable. [There was some considerable dispute about Hebrews, the catholic epistles and Revelation on a variety of grounds.]
By the close of the second century however, there was general agreement on the books in the NT. But it wasn't for another 170 years that any 'church council' took any action. At that time, the Synod at Laodicea seems to have taken some action. [This 'synod' by the way includes about 30 unspecified men. Not a huge group.] "Seems" because the earlier 'minutes' of their meetings simply say "no 'uncanonical' books should be read in church." However, later versions of the 'minutes' include a list of the 26 books omitting Revelation for the NT.
Now, the guy the RCC really has to hate is a 6th century bishop in Rome named Gelasius. He only held office for 4 years and only did one thing that we know of -- he published a list of the 27 books of the NT and the current books of the OT -- but and this is where he really made life tough for the RCC, he listed some 600 (!!) books which were NOT scriptural. Obviously, he didn't know (oops, not 'infallible'?) that the RCC would want to continue to manufacture ear-tickling, people-pleasing doctrine after doctrine for the next 1500 years and could really have used some of the phony books on his list of outlawed phony books. For example, there were a bunch of books trying to re-style Mary as some sort of goddess (sound familiar?)with special powers and position, like trees bowing down to her and that sort of thing. One or two even tried to give her the title of "Mother of God." Unfortunately (for the RCC) Galasias said 'they're phony books' and ruled them out. [What a party-pooper, he.]
5. Christians certainly don't "ignore the wisdom of the apostles who wrote Acts through Revelation." Ironically, the counter-reformation which led the charge against even reading the Scriptures made precisely the opposite charge, that Christians (who read the Scriptures) would be putting too much emphasis on the Acts-Revelation books. Not true by the way.
More seriously, here's the bottom line: Jesus Christ is the central Figure of His-story. What happens to all of us -- eternally -- depends entirely on what we do in response to His claims about Himself and upon us. Men (not just the RCC certainly, but including the RCC, the Mormons, the Mohammadans, the Jehovah's Witnesses, ad infinitum) have never been satisfied with the simple claims of Jesus and His Gospel. They always seem to want to add some little (or big) doo-dad here or there. ("Other people's religions have goddesses, why can't we have one?" "How can we make budget if we can't have a good indulgence sale now and again?" "See, I found these gold plates in a hill --- but I don't have them anymore." "I think we ought to have some really pretty robes and some secret dispensations that only we can give out.")
But all that clap-trap doesn't change the Person of Jesus Christ. He stands athwart History and warns that none of the rest of the man-made stuff had better cause one of His 'little ones' to stumble. So, that's why those "so funny" Christians try to follow Him and keep it just as simple as He made it -- in the Bible.