Back in September I started getting comments from a misguided zealot calling himself covnitkepr1, who insisted that I start following his blog. Now I've attracted another one who calls himself Steve Finnell and purports to be from the Hoosier State (Indiana). I've read both blogs and found the same egregious error on each one.
My standard disclaimer here is that I'm a Christian. I'm not a particularly good Christian, and in fact on my best days I aspire to be a pretty much okay kind of Christian. I don't personally advocate saving people from themselves or each other. I've tried to do that sort of thing in the past, and nothing good has ever come of it. Nor do I espouse my religious beliefs at every opportunity. I don't preach, not even to the choir - which is easy since the church I attend doesn't have a choir. I believe that anyone who wants to learn about Christianity can do so, and with very little effort they can find a better source for their information than I'll ever be. I don't even do my very best to attend services every Sunday, although those who look for my on Sunday morning will most often find me in church.
I wrote that to say this: None of that matters. It wouldn't matter if I were an active minister with three PhDs and were accounted to be a world authority on theology, Aramaic and classical Greek. When it comes to Christianity, there is only one single source for Scripture, and that is the Holy Bible. The version really doesn't matter much unless you're a theologian working on your thesis, and then you'll already know more about your subject than most people ever will. The Bible is available to everyone (in the United States anyway) and anyone who can read is able to find answers to scriptural questions in the Bible. All you have to do is read it, but not everyone does. Not even the two Christians who are trying to get me to follow them.
Covnitkepr1's blog is According to the Book. I've read it and I wrote about it here: My Blog: Things I Don't Understand. Steve Finnell's blog is Christian With A View, which I've also read. Both contain the same egregious error: A person must be baptized in order to be saved (born again). This isn't true, and it isn't biblical. No one has to be baptized in order to be saved. The proof of this is the thief on the cross who was saved without being baptized. You don't need to take my word for this, go look it up for yourself (Luke 23:39-43).
I doubt that either of these self-proclaimed good Christians has taken much time to read my curmudgeonly, somewhat caustic ramblings. If they had, I doubt they'd be asking me to follow their blogs, which, by the way, I have no intention of doing.