John was an Apostle

Well I have formed an opinion on that question, although I'm not 100% certain in my conclusion. My personal opinion is that it is God's universal law for the Husband to be the head of the wife, simply because God is the head of us (and we are his spiritual bride) and Christ is said to be the head of the church. I believe wives should submit to the husbands and that the husbands should be the head of the households because it is their intended roles. Unfortunately, People often confuse submission with superiority. And also once again, I'd like to interject that obeying God's law would supercede woman's submissive role to the husband. For example, if the husband wants to do a "Bonnie and Clyde" robbery of a bank, I think it's time to obey God's law first and not go through with it.

Peter nor Paul were not telling us to blindly follow the government. After all, several of Paul's letters were indeed labeled as Subversion. In fact, Christianity was a subversive sect in the first century because it told people to Worship God and not Emperor Nero. 11 of the Apostles were martyred for their faith, most of the time it was in subversion to the leaders who asked them to recant. As Peter and Paul would both say if they were here today, God's law supersedes man's law. You obey Man's law when it doesn't conflict with God's law.

Well I think his statistics aren't 100% verifiable. I definitely don't believe that 11 years ago, 83% of the country considered themselves Christian. This is a clear exaggeration by anyone's standards. However, I think it's important to realize some things: Christianity isn't changing. Christianity has always had the same positions on topics (like homosexuality). What HAS changed (IMO), is the people. In the homosexual issue, people have been taught that homosexuals deserve just as much rights as anyone else, even to the point as giving them some superficial status as a race (i.e., to be against homosexuality is like being against someone's race). Again, in that example, the only thing that has changed is people's teachings on the subject. Teaching shapes the society. As far as "hypocrisy" goes, there has always been hypocrites in every belief system. The only thing that has changed is that when someone is a hypocrite, they are particularly examined under society's microscope and lauded out like Hester Prynne, only with big "H's" on their chests. Society now looks for hypocrites so as to discredit things that it doesn't like. Christianity is now the modern example. Society is becoming anti-Christian to the point where hypocritic Christians are now thrown into the limelight to try to give creedence that Christianity is false. Christianity hasn't changed. Non-Christianity has.

Well I think that it's an exaggeration that "We cannot agree on much of anything". In order to call yourself a Christian, you, by definition, need to believe certain "Core Principles" about the Christian faith (e.g., the Diety and salvation of Christ). Everything else though: Do we need to be in agreement on everything? It would be nice I suppose, but we have the most important kind of unity the way it is. As far as other doctrinal issues (not pertaining to the principles of the Christian faith), I don't think it's absolutely necessary that we take our time in unifying all Christians on them (like they do in Islam). That time could be used to help witness to others and so forth.

People have to realize that science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. I voted for the second option simply because a lot of scientists that have this so called "evidence that disproves the Bible" are usually acting out of biases, or using very unscientific methods (like overestimating C-14 reports). However, science usually catches up to the Biblical worldview after so many years, as we've seen in the past. All so called "scientific findings" are not absolute.