Beloved

1 Timothy 6:2 - "And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."

It's often useful to notice not only what is said as the main/direct point in a verse, but also what is assumed.

The above verse is an instruction from Paul to Timothy about what should be taught to believing slaves about how to relate to their masters - in this verse, particularly, believing masters.

"[T]hose who are benefited are believers and beloved."

Because, it is implied, all believers are beloved. If you are a believer, and you meet a fellow believer, or work alongside them, or under them, or whatever, then this is your attitude to them: they are beloved, for Jesus' sake. The Beloved One counts them as beloved, and so, of course, do all of his brethren.

The Christmas inn-keeper is a fictional character

The few words about his birth in the Bible indicate that the Son of God was born in a poor family home, not in a community stable for travellers which a fictional inn-keeper sent them to. 

It's much better to teach children to study the Bible carefully, than to leave them believing a sentimental version that they later find out has the flimsiest basis in the actual text (really, a misunderstanding built upon a single word): https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable-and-it-really-matters/

The sometime fantasy land of paedobaptist apologetics

Baptists who are Baptists by conviction (i.e. not simply by default, but who have taken the time to seek to understand and analyse paedobaptist arguments), will be aware that a good number of paedobaptist arguments effectively exist in their separate universe. They convincingly refute arguments that either nobody made, or if they did, they are a representative not of a serious or representative attempt to argue that baptism is intended for those who profess faith, but of some off-the-cuff comment that nobody would mistake for a serious argument, of the kind dealt with when seeking to get the best version of an argument.

Of this sort are arguments like "Baptists are Baptists because they are hyper-individualists who see the kingdom of heaven as following the American dream, but we paedobaptists believe in the community of God's people", or "Baptists believe that the Old Testament is a failed plan, but paedobaptists believe in the continuity of God's plans and people throughout the ages" or "Baptists think the church began with revivalist preachers preaching in tents in the 19th century", and such like over-simplifications. Well, fine, if someone does believe that, then do refute it, but please can you do so without the "Baptists believe" prefix?

Of this ilk is Douglas Wilson's recent blog post, "The Grace of All Forgiveness".

It opens: "Some have argued that baptism should be withheld from infants and children because they think it a sign, not of inclusion in Christ, but rather as a sign of ordination—as a sign of taking on the mantle of service for Christ."

Really? Who argued that, and where? Baptism is not a sign of inclusion in Christ, but solely of being appointed to serve him? And this is a viewpoint found significantly amongst Baptists?

Again, perhaps "some" have indeed argued this. But the suggestion to people that this is a representative or common viewpoint, or that recognising that "Baptist is a sign of inclusion in Christ" is a belief that leads one towards paedobaptism, is absurd.

I invite my paedobaptist friends to leave the fantasy land of what they too often tell themselves round in circles concerning the strange things Baptists believe, and to read some serious works of Baptist apologetics instead. Then we can mutually discuss our beliefs, and endeavour together to understand which more accurately represents the mind of the Lord.