Is it enough to just listen to the bible?

Yes and no. I love to frustrate people with such an answer!

Yes, if you take it very slowly and discuss the details with a group over an extended period of time. Even better is if you listen to an expert (preacher/teacher) explaining the sense of the text you have just listened to. This is how it was done in the book of Nehemiah

"...the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law, while the people remained in their places. 8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." - Nehemiah 8:7-8

And no, because there is too much detail in most of the bible for you to pick up through listening, even just careful listening.

But again, yes, because you can get the main ideas pretty easily from listening, especially if you have the Spirit helping you to understand.

Whatever you do, listen or read, don't take your daily bread lightly.  Consider how you do everything and do it deliberately, with care, with love, and with the most glory to God in mind.

What's your take on Church and State separation?

One should be kept separate from the other for sure, but not in the way you might think.

This discussion often centers around how the church should keep out of state (government) decisions because not everyone is Christian so we shouldn't make Christian laws/decisions.  And usually, those calling for separation want an all-or-nothing approach, i.e. no church involvement in state business at all.

Now here's the counter to that.  Isn't the government and the state supposed to represent all of the people as best they can?  If so, doesn't that include the wishes of everyone, regardless of religion?  So isn't it true that people, who have values influenced by their religion, have just as much say as people who have values stemming from other sources?

So we can see that it is quite silly to keep religious influence out at this level.

But what about making laws which are entirely church doctrine?  Well, that would be taking things too far the other way so that people with no religious leanings are not being considered fairly.  So you see, there must be a balance which includes all people, but just as it is wrong to have a church state (unless the vast majority of the population is of the same religion and denomination) it is wrong to have an atheistic state.  A purely secular (supposedly neutral) state is not possible either - not in the sense most would imagine.

And here's another important point.  Should the state have a say over how you worship God?  Isn't every man responsible before God for his own actions?  Remember that people have to individually give an account to God for their actions when they see Him on Judgement Day.  This means that the state would be telling you to do things for which you (not the state) are responsible for dealing with the consequences.  Religious freedom should actually be protected by a responsible state.  

The main point is that the separation shouldn't be the church keeping out of state business, it should be the other way around.  The state needs to keep out of church business because a man's faith is his alone before God.  If you look into the history of this you will uncover the truth that this is often what they were talking about in various constitutions and writings when they spoke of church/state separation.

Christians are hypocrites!

That depends on what you mean by hypocrite.

Some say that a Christian is a hypocrite if they don't live up to the perfect standard that they tell others to strive for.  This isn't hypocrisy though.

If the Christian said that they were perfect and then you saw them stealing raisins from the bulk food at the supermarket, then they would be a hypocrite.  If the Christian struggles with stealing, lying, lust, etc. and is open about that struggle, but while encouraging others to join the struggle, then there is no way that you can consider them a hypocrite.

And if you expect them to keep quiet until they have fixed their problems, until they are perfect them self, then you are creating an unreasonable expectation.  After all, we don't expect perpetually recovering alcoholics to keep quiet when they see someone abusing alcohol as they once did.  And an alcoholic will never admit to having completely conquered the craving, which is why they are perpetually recovering.

Christianity doesn't expect true perfection in this life, but it does expect a turning from evil and a striving for perfection.  The hope for attaining that perfection lies in the promised return of Christ who will complete the striving, making all those who have trusted in him perfect at his second coming.

Even so, if you still don't buy it, don't want to receive it, from a fallen human being (who might struggle not to be a hypocrite); at least take it from the perfect Son of God himself.  Jesus calls people to be perfect as God in heaven is perfect.  But knowing we can't make it, he graciously offers forgiveness anyway.

Why would anyone follow a God who can't make up his mind?

When God set out to destroy Israel, after they turned to idolatry and worshipped a golden calf, His mind was apparently changed by Moses.  You can read about this in Genesis chapter 32.

Some say that a God who changes his mind is ridiculous so that either the bible is wrong or the God of the bible is not worth following.  Some even think that this means you can make God do what you want (like giving you material things if you just have enough faith).

Here's a scripture to put this into perspective:

"Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors,  (9)  remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,  (10)  declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,'  (11)  calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

- Isaiah 46:8-11  

If God knows the end from the beginning, and he will accomplish his purpose, do you really think he didn't know what he would choose to do in the end?  Since he clearly knew, do you think he really changed his mind?  Isn't it more likely that this exchange is either recorded from Moses' perspective, or that we need to read a bit closer to see what's being said?

If you read Genesis 32 carefully, you can see that there was no change of mind in any case.  God merely relented from pouring out his wrath on Israel.  If that's too weak for you, at least know that God had already made up his mind because his purpose will be accomplished no matter what we want.

Won't heaven be boring?

Only if you're a person who delights in wickedness.

Anyone who thinks that God is pretty awesome will never get bored.

On the flip side, hell is not a place of eternal excitement for those who might get bored in heaven (though I guess that depends on what you mean by excitement).  Hell is described by fire and eternal torment which is highly unpleasant for everyone who is there.  You might be in constant awareness of this suffering for eternity...

But isn't the devil in charge of hell?  Satan is my friend, he'll look after me.

Sorry, but Satan is being punished in hell along with you.  Hell was originally made for the devil and the fallen angels.

It might be a good time to humble yourself, admit your weakness, and repent - trusting in Jesus to take your punishment on the cross rather than taking it yourself in hell.

Are you saying that Christianity is better than my faith?

Of course I am.  And you are a hypocrite if you tell me off for this and have a faith that you defend in return!

If I didn't believe that Christianity wasn't a wise path to follow, I wouldn't follow it.  So I make no apologies about saying that my faith is better than yours.

Perhaps you don't have the confidence in your god that I have in mine!

Do I need to be baptised to be saved?

Baptism is important, and if you are a Christian you should be baptised, though if you press me I'll say, "No, definitely not".

Baptism is a bit like repentance - it is something that people do once they become a Christian (have faith) but by itself it doesn't save.  Some understand baptism slightly different from this but without saying that baptism saves.  So why get baptised?  Because Jesus commanded us to perform this ritual as an outward sign of inward change.

This isn't something to be taken lightly.

Scripture speaks very strongly about the importance of being obedient and being baptised.  Because the bible is so strong on this holy ritual, many have mistakenly said that baptism itself is necessary for salvation.  The problem with taking it this far is that you introduce a deed or action that must be performed in addition to having faith.

Precision of language is important so that you don't mislead anyone: If someone asks if baptism itself saves, you can say that salvation is a work of the Spirit, changing a person on the inside. These changes will bring about obedience (in your actions) to the commands of God.  Baptism is a matter of obedience.  Those who are saved will want to obey because they love God.

Putting it another way, baptism is an effect that is produced by salvation, not a cause of salvation.

Further reading on the heresy of baptismal regeneration
A sermon by Charles Spurgeon on baptismal regeneration
The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry comprehensive article on baptism