Evangelist- sorry, I couldn't get to your link.

BlackmanX- care to give an explanation of what Paul was talking about when he said women should not be in leadership roles in the church or when he talked about male headship in the home?

BlackmanX's explaination, or will any explaination do?

Galatians 3
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Christianity in my definition is belief in the Bible. This the one "faith" that is based on history and evidence.

Surely Christianity is a belief in Christ (and an attempt to follow Him).  It's perfectly possible to be Christian and never to have seen a bible.   The bible is a means to learn about Christ, not the end in itself.

Make contact with all her teachers individually - by email if possible (it's far and away the best method of communication with teachers in a computer aware school).

And listen to what they say, even if it seems to differ from your experience at home - students sometimes behave very differently in the school environment to home, or even just in certain subject areas.

The Screw-Tape letters was ok. Mere Christianity was the best if you want to know about his deep religious convictions and insights.

I found Mere Christianity too boring to get through much of.  I'd take Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce or Till We Have Faces first.  Or maybe the Pilgrims Regress.  Hmmm.

The goal is a forum where christians can interact without constantly being mocked for their faith.

Most of the mocking of people's faith on this forum seems to come from other Christians.

Can anyone give an example of such mocking, so it can be recognized and worked on to overcome.

I am not sure I understand mocking?

Perhaps mocking isn't quite the most accurate word to describe the kind of stuff on the anti-catholic threads, though there is certainly an element of mocking.  I was responding more to the spirit of the thread than the precise wording.

I always wonder to what extent the people who profess to be wican actually believe it anyway - it always strikes me as more of a hobby than a religion.   After all, it doesn't even really come from anywhere - it's not the ancient religion it purports to be, but a mish-mash of old stuff reseached from a variety of ancient pagan religions and the bits filled in with quite a lot of imagination.  Can anyone really believe in a 19th century invention?

And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

in this part of the creed what is meant by " And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. "
is it in god all inclusive, and teaching church?

the last bit looks like gibberish to me - you might like to rephrase your question

Uh-oh,
I declare my offerings on my taxes.  Does that make me a hypocrite?  Man!  I hope not!  Now you’re making me nervous, ML.
I don’t consider my tax return “boasting”.  Aren’t ‘intentions’ and what is in the heart the real key?  
Plus, because I do get a fair chunk of change back on my taxes every year, I am able to turn around and give part of that back to the congregation…

I would never judge you or your intentions.  I especially don't think it makes you a hypocrite as it is definitely not for public consumption.  

I don't do it because the few dollars I get back from the IRS can't compare to how God is going to reward me later.

You could always claim the money of the IRS and pass it on to a worthy cause.

In the UK it works like that anyway - you don't get a tax break from your donations, but (providing you fill in the necessary forms) the charity can claim back the tax you've payed on your donation.

Most of the mocking of people's faith on this forum seems to come from other Christians.

I doubt this is true, if it is, it is truly sad.

It is, and it is.

The goal is a forum where christians can interact without constantly being mocked for their faith.

Most of the mocking of people's faith on this forum seems to come from other Christians.

How, exactly, do you propose to define Christian, and find out who does and who doesn't meet that definition?

As others have said, there are three major problems:

1.  Do you really want to ban anyone with even a hint of searching for God in their heart.
2.  How do you define "Christian"
3.  How do you find out who does and doesn't fit your definition?

So you think women should be stoned to death for adultery, and children mauled to death by bears for teasing?

That is a question that is loaded with an emotion payload. You have to be aware I meant no such thing. You could've asked. Naughty naughty.

Of course it's a loaded question.  It's a device for pointing out the absurdity of your argument.

If you use the OT laws to support the death penalty for murder, you can use them just as well to support the death penalty for adultery, and either death by bears is an appropriate punishment for teasing or it isnt.

If you say the New Testament nullified the death penalty, you should try reading Jude. The adulterous woman walked. Jesus knows who to let walk. Ourselves, we need a jury of twelve peers.

The 12 peer decide who is and isn't guilty, not the punishment.  Jesus didn't say she wasn't guilty - he said she was, but shouldn't be stoned.

Do you, or do you not support the death penalty for adultery according to OT laws?

I agree with joelkaki.

While many many people, and some alleged scholars try to approach Jonah as if he were purely allegorical, there are several things to keep in mind.

One, he was a real person, so referred to by Jesus, and the son of a known prophet, named in several other places in the OT.

That doesn't prove that he was real, any more than it proves that all the characters in the parables are real.

Second, as a Jewish prophet, he would have a natural disdain and hatred for the Ninevites, as they were Assyrian, and the Assyrians had previously lambasted the Hebrews pretty good. As such, Jonah would naturally want to rebel against preaching to them, which he would see as God offering some really nasty people an opportunity to get right...and Jonah didn't think they should have the chance.

Lastly (too many other points to talk about), the bit with the gourd vine showed where Jonahs heart really was....he cared more for himself and his comfort via the vine than he did about the sparing of several hundred thousand souls.

Jonah literally makes sense...and since it makes literal sense, make no other sense out of it or you might end up with nonsense.

None of the above depends on a literal reading.