No problem. I'm just sorry we can't be for more help.
It sounds bad. All you can do is stand up to her, and pray. NOTHING will be solved without prayer. Not just a little but, but NOTHING will be answered. Pray for Gods will, pray for her, pray for yourself. I think I speak for everyone here when I say we will all do the same for you.

First of all, I never said "scientific proofs".  Theories.  

Well, then, show me the theories!

Questions that pertain to subjects that happened long before humans ever existed are pretty much impossible to prove.  Also, just because science cannot currently account for the exact origin of our universe doesn't mean it never will.  Think of where we were several hundred years ago when we believed that the earth was the center of the solar system.  Yes, science can't answer everything, but neither can religion.  All too many times have I asked a question and repeatedly received the answer "we can't understand everything that God does".  How is that different from science not yet explaining everything?  Also, you failed to respond to my questions as to God's existence before ours.

What questions? What was god doing before he created the Universe? Battling with Satan, making Angles and other Heavenly beings, making other Universes, and things of this nature. You asked Questions, not me. Of course I didn’t answer!

Assuming that God exists for the sake of an argument is completely independent of assuming that everything in the Bible is true.  In fact, you really answer nothing in response to my discussion with Allinall.  I would also like to know what kind of "scientific" (I like how you put science in quotes...) facts you have that prove the Bible is accurate.

You want proof that the bible is real? Unlike yourself, I am not going to squabble of semantics, and thereby avoiding the questions, I will give you this proof you ask for. But then, what right do you have to ask me to produce proof, when you can’t even produce so much as a few theories?  Anyways, the following is a list of evidence that proves the bible is accurate, feel free to research it!

 1. In northern Syria in the 1970s, the Ebla archive where discovered, and has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. These Documents, written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C., demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

2.The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

4. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.

5. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

6.Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5, was said to be a biblical myth as well. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus, according to recorded history, that is. Then tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon.

7. And this is the most important, the existence of Jesus Christ was recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

You want more? I’ve got more, plenty more. But it is your turn, kid. Notice, my first reply after your request to see proof, and I gave it, yet, I have yet to see any of your theories. You’re just another clown who comes in here, trying to annoy Christians and upset their belief. We have been around for over 2000 years, kid, one asinine post from a wanta-be scientist is going to change our minds. We are talking about beliefs and theory that have been proven over time, and as time goes on, they are only proven more. How about this Junior, you go off, do some research, and then we will talk. Until then, keep your childish posts to your self.

Eloquently put, Saved. Broken, you made some good points, but as Saved pointed out, you have a few holes in your theory. Now saved, my father has been in Anesthesia for over 30 years, he is one of the best in the region, and one of the best in the country at doing Epidurals. And if the Epidural is done well, then the women does feel NO pain DURING childbirth. However, the pain afterward is a different story… No top of that, we have to keep in mind, I said “done WELL” it is very possible for a mistakes, or even to little or to much in the way of drugs, or even lack of skill on the practitioners part, and the women still feels a little pain. Good job, Saved. Other then that, you did a good job. Other then that, Broken, how do you explain the multitude of verses speaking against women preachers?

In your reply to Questions, I ask you to show these Scientific proofs? The Big Bang theory is been proven to be a theoretical impossibility, and the believers are nothing more then bitter psudo-scientist  more interested in disproving Christianity then furthering mankinds development.

In your reply to Allinall, You didn’t think anything thru. See, you asked us here why God, if he is real, doesn’t show himself. Your questions was hypothetical: assuming God was real, why doesn’t he show him self. Well, if the stipulation of your hypothetical question is that God exists, then it is only logical to assume, in the Hypothetical question, that the bible is true as well, at least in the stand point of this situation. Sorry for over use of “Hypothetical.”
On top of that, sense you are so big on “Science” you should know all historical and archeological facts we know of back up the bible. So, even if we go solely on science, to say the bible is not an reliable source is in conflict with what you said easily. Don’t worry about your theories, there are “heavily supported scientific” FACTS that prove the bible is accurate.

Historically, women have been called by God to leadership. It is also shown within the pages of Scripture. Tradition and culture have been instead the force behind the suffice that women are somehow not "equipped" for leadership due to their "God ordained role".

They have been called to lead powerful roles, but rarely, if ever, that of heads of church.

I do not agree that it is out of propaganda from such organizations as NOW and other secular movements, but instead, from intelligent biblical scholars and Christians who have in their quest, come to the realization that God has gifted both men as well as women for leadership, ministry, and service to bring the Gospel message to others.  There are many many Christians who do not hold your point of view tibby.  The SBC was divided with some states withdrawing from the convention due to their infamous revision to their Baptist Faith and Message in regard to this very issue.  The Willow Creek Church which creates Christian materials used throughout the world hold to women in all levels as called by God.  

Please, don’t tell me about the SBC. The SBC runs this little town I live in, I know about the SBC. You can throw a rock in any direction and hit SBC (I know, I've been tempted to more then once  ). Then it will bounce off them and hit a BMA! lol SBC, at least the ones in this little Texan town, base their beliefs more on the “Ma lit’ woman gonna stay in da kitchen an’ cuk for me” philosophy then the biblical philosophy.  

In Genesis, God's creation design was male/female equality. Genesis 1:26-27 show man and woman share the same nature the same image of God. Both are commissioned to rule the earth. They share in essence and equality of role. Just as a piece of paper, by its nature has two sides, so humanity, by its created nature has two sexes. Neither the male nor female alone, but the two of them together as "one flesh" constitute and complete what it means generically to be human. "God created man in his own image" creating "male and female" concurrently. Gender differentiation was inherent in God's design for humanity from the onset. That essential partnership of male and female was shattered by the impulse of the two genders to achieve their destiny separately.

I agree with having couples share office. That is how our church is. All of the married church leaders are together in meetings, Pastor is both man and wife, elders and elders wives are equal in power. When man and women are married. What about the single women? No, not as Pastors. Preachers, evangelists, Prophetess, yes, but as leaders of the church, with men subject to her, no.

Genesis 3:16 were the consequences of sin, not divine ordinances decreed for all time. These are evils which are contrary to the ideal of human nature and to the intention of a good God. The terms of the "sentance" described conditions as they actually existed in the ancient world for both men and women.

If they are not decrees for all time, then why do they all still apply? The Snake STILL crawls in its belly, Men STILL have to work for food, and women STILL have pain during child-birth. It sounds pretty permanent to me. Sounds to me, if the other parts of the punishment are still in effect, why should the part about women being subject to their husbands be ANY different then the rest. And I am not even going to quote the New Testament verses, the rest of the guys pretty much covered them for me. Which is why I didn’t feel inclined to reply till I say your response.

Yes, women can do the work of God. But, I don't think they are priests. Historically, the Church has taught that women are equal to men but simply have a different role to perform. NOW and other groups like to spread propaganda saying the Christians don't allow women to do the work of God, Christians are curbing the rights of women. No more then the Government is curbing the rights of Congressmen. It has nothing to do with rights, it is a think of reasonability.

It is Gods command. See Genesis 3:16. As much as people hate to admit it, God clearly said the man shall rule over the women. Is this politically correct? No, it isn’t. But who ever said the Bible was politically correct? Jesus came and died for our sins, but the snake still crawls on his belly (Gen 3:14), we still have to work for food and we still have thorns and thistles (Gen 3:18-19)! And last I checked, you still have pains during child birth (Gen 3:16). So why are you allowed to take out a part of your punishment, that is, being ruled over by men, while the Males and the Snakes still have to carry out our full punishment! That is just as fair as, I dare say, women not being allowed to be priest, maybe? A women can do the work of God, and she can do mighty work of God, bring millions of Jesus, but by Devine Law set on this Earth by God himself, a women can’t rule over a man! Don’t hate men, hate Eve!

You don’t have to have a place in the Elders counsel of your Church to do the work of God, keep that in mind.

Man, sounds rough. Sounds interesting as well, I’d be interested in knowing more, if you are willing to speak.

I’d advise prayer. Lots of prayer. We will all pray for you as well. And show him the love of God though you. Don’t lose your temper, control your anger. A gentle answer turns away wrath. Kindly ask him to stop once, but not argue with him or debate or beg. Stand tall, with your arms across your chest when you ask. Your voice and word should say “Please, I good friend” but your body should say “STOP NOW!” You want to look loving, but you need to speak with authority at the same time.

But the question is, what is the thorn. We all argee that it was there to keep him from boasting, it is said in context, however, the question he asked, that we keep skipping over, is this: WHAT WAS THE THORN!?

We are looking to deeping into the verse, my friends. We are over analizing things. It is a simple question, one that doesn't require deep thought, just a little basic research.

One day, read “The Way of a Pilgrim” It is a very interesting book about that verse.

Can you be more specific? It might be helpful to know exactly what they are persecuting you for. What do they believe, how does that differ from your beliefs?

People have wondered that for years. What was Paul’s thorn? The truth is, we don’t know for sure. It could be any number of things. All we know is that it is an aliment of some kind. Many believe is was a physical problem, some injury of some kind. Maybe when he was blinded on the road, God never fully healed his eyes.  Maybe when he said “came not with excellency of speech “ in 1 Corinthians, he was talking about some speech impediment he had. We know he was torture, maybe he has an inoperable injury from abuse. It might not be physical, but that is the most excepted theory.

Maybe he was haunted by his blood past. Maybe Alexander the coppersmith from 2 Timothy 4 is the “thorn in his side.” Maybe dealing with all the problems with Church was having with the Jewish Authorities and newly formed heresies the  was the thorn.

The reason Paul didn’t elaborate? Again, no one knows, but I have heard many a preacher say it was so we don’t look at the to specifically. What if you have a leg injury, and this verse could help you, but Paul told us the verse was about his eyes? Then you might be inclined to pass over the verse as only for people with eye troubles.  

Over all, this verse and the following verse are a mini-Job. It is the Book of Job minus 41 chapters.

What track company do you use, bro?

Whatever.

That is all you are going to say? You said you had plenty of verses, let us see them. How about this: next time one of us using simple logical to prove you wrong, and you feel like posting “whatever,” just don’t reply, ok?

Ever competed? In which sports? Whats your favorite?

You quote a verse that is in mid-sentence!? No wonder you have a twisted view of Christianity. Let me quote you the verse in context:

Luke 3:3-6
He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
   "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord,  make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.' "

See, the verse you quoted is quoting another verse, which is :

Isaiah 40:3-5

A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain and the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

This isn't vague or dubious, it is clear what the verse means. The Glory of God will be revealed, and everyone will see it. Everyone will know of God salvation throw Jesus Christ.

We can give you direct verse, in context, and say Jesus is the only way to heaven, but you have to manipulate and take things out of context to prove your point.

…I find 'verse-trading' to be a dubious enterprise at best. Really, scripture can be found to support or refute just about anything.

Yes, verse trading can be dubious, and scripture and be found to support of refute anything, but only if you play around with the verses like you just did. The chapters and verses were added much later, these books where written to be read as one piece. It is easy to shed light on things, no longer making them dubious, buy reading the whole book. You are going to have to do better then that if you want us to believe that the bible says Jesus is not the only way to heaven!  You are not playing around with moronic baby Christians here, pal. We are for the most part intelligent Christians who read apologetics FOR FUN! You maybe could get way with quoting a dubious verse like that to convince the minor league Christians, but we are some hard-hitting player, kid. Try again, this time with the verse in context.