• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Southern Baptist Convention

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
13,731
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The SBC is known for fiery rhetoric. I believe Jimmie Carter left it over some of the rhetoric. It is a political influence.

American Christians were never monolithic. The threads go back to colonial times.

I know someone from a black baptist church. He says they do not force kidsto be baptized. They have to choose it. They have a baptismal pool for full body immersion.



The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a Christian denomination based in the United States. It is the world's largest Baptist denomination, and the largest Protestant[2][3] and second-largest Christian denomination in the United States, smaller than the Roman Catholic Church, according to self-reported membership statistics.

The word Southern in "Southern Baptist Convention" stems from its having been organized in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, by Baptists in the Southern United States who split from the northern Baptists (known today as the American Baptist Churches USA) over the issue of slavery, with Southern Baptists strongly opposed to its abolition.[4] After the American Civil War, another split occurred when most freedmen set up independent black congregations, regional associations, and state and national conventions, such as the National Baptist Convention, which became the second-largest Baptist convention by the end of the 19th century.

Since the 1940s, the Southern Baptist Convention has spread across the states, losing some of its regional identity but nonetheless keeping its original name.[5] While still heavily concentrated in the Southern U.S., the SBC has member churches across the country and 41 affiliated state conventions.[6][7] Southern Baptist churches are evangelical in doctrine and practice, emphasizing the significance of the individual conversion experience, which is affirmed by the person having complete immersion in water for a believer's baptism; they reject the practice of infant baptism.[7] The SBC says that other specific beliefs based on biblical interpretation can vary due to their congregational polity, and have resolved to balance local church autonomy with accountability against abuses by ministers and others in the Church.[8]

Self-reported SBC membership peaked in 2006 at roughly 16 million.[9] Membership has contracted by an estimated 13.6% since that year, with 2020 marking the 14th year of continuous decline.[10] Mean denomination-wide weekly attendance dropped about 27% between 2006 and 2020.[11][12]

American Revolution period​

Before the Revolution, Baptist and Methodist evangelicals in the South promoted the view of the common man's equality before God, which embraced slaves and free blacks. They challenged the hierarchies of class and race and urged planters to abolish slavery. They welcomed slaves as Baptists and accepted them as preachers.[19]

Isaac (1974) analyzes the rise of the Baptist Church in Virginia, with emphasis on evangelicalism and social life. There was a sharp division between the austerity of the plain-living Baptists, attracted initially from yeomen and common planters, and the opulence of the Anglican planters, the slave-holding elite who controlled local and colonial government in what had become a slave society by the late 18th century.[20] The gentry interpreted Baptist church discipline as political radicalism, but it served to ameliorate disorder. The Baptists intensely monitored each other's moral conduct, watching especially for sexual transgressions, cursing, and excessive drinking; they expelled members who would not reform.[21]

The issues surrounding slavery dominated the 19th century in the United States.[26] This created tension between Baptists in northern and southern states over the issue of manumission. In the two decades after the Revolution during the Second Great Awakening, northern Baptist preachers (as well as the Quakers and Methodists) increasingly argued that slaves be freed.[27] Although most Baptists in the 19th century south were yeomen farmers and common planters, the Baptists also began to attract major planters among their membership. The southern pastors interpreted the Bible as supporting slavery and encouraged good paternalistic practices by slaveholders. They preached to slaves to accept their places and obey their masters, and welcomed slaves and free blacks as members, though whites controlled the churches' leadership, and seating was usually segregated.[27] From the early 19th century, many Baptist preachers in the South also argued in favor of preserving the right of ministers to be slaveholders.[28]

Southern whites generally required black churches to have white ministers and trustees. In churches with mixed congregations, seating was segregated, with blacks often in a balcony. White preaching often emphasized Biblical stipulations that slaves should accept their places and try to behave well toward their masters.
 
Yeah. This has been in the news for days, yet some people insist that Christians have better morals than atheists! I guess that these conservative Christians embrace the idea that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness for their sins and the slate is cleared, so they can get back out there and sin again. I don't know how any woman or decent man can remain in the Southern Baptist church.

I think we discussed this about a year or two ago. I guess the sex crimes were even worse than was previously thought.

Btw, I was baptized in a conservative Baptist church at the age of 7 or 8. I wasn't forced to be baptized. In fact, the pastor almost denied me my wish to be Baptized due to my age, but somehow I convinced him I was ready to be baptized. I never officially joined the church, partly because I began to have more doubts by the time I was in my teens. My childhood church was the Northern version of the Southern Baptists. I don't know if the sect still exists but it was known as the Conservative Baptists of America.
 
In the news…
For decades, Southern Baptist leadership covered up sex abuse by their clergy.
https://apnews.com/article/baptist-...n-convention-bfdbe64389790630488f854c3dae3fd5
I saw a segment on the NBC News this morning about that sex-abuse coverup on the part of the Southern Baptist Convention. It appears that the same people who tell us we should respect life are sexually assaulting women. Maybe that's why they want women to give birth--half of those babies are female, and they'll grow up to be attractive girls who can sate the lust of powerful religious men.
 
Yeah. This has been in the news for days, yet some people insist that Christians have better morals than atheists! I guess that these conservative Christians embrace the idea that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness for their sins and the slate is cleared, so they can get back out there and sin again. I don't know how any woman or decent man can remain in the Southern Baptist church.

I think we discussed this about a year or two ago. I guess the sex crimes were even worse than was previously thought.
In the interest of fairness, it's important to recognize that atheists get into trouble over allegations of sexual assault too. David Silverman, for example, allegedly sexually assaulted women when he worked as a "firebrand atheist" for the American Atheists.
 
Yeah. This has been in the news for days, yet some people insist that Christians have better morals than atheists! I guess that these conservative Christians embrace the idea that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness for their sins and the slate is cleared, so they can get back out there and sin again. I don't know how any woman or decent man can remain in the Southern Baptist church.

I think we discussed this about a year or two ago. I guess the sex crimes were even worse than was previously thought.
In the interest of fairness, it's important to recognize that atheists get into trouble over allegations of sexual assault too. David Silverman, for example, allegedly sexually assaulted women when he worked as a "firebrand atheist" for the American Atheists.
Of course they do. To clarify, I was being a bit sarcastic because of the thread I started awhile back about atheist morality, where a few atheist members denied the statistics that favored atheists over theists when it comes to morality. Nobody ever said that all atheists are morally upright or all Christians are immoral sex offenders.

Still, I've been a member of numerous atheist organizations and haven't known of any sexual abuse or assault happening among any of the members of those groups. I'm sure there are atheist men who sexually assault women or children, but It seems to be rather widespread among certain sects of Christianity, and we're finally learning more about that. And, some of this information was in the news a couple of years ago. The point is that it's even worse than previously thought.
 
Yeah. This has been in the news for days, yet some people insist that Christians have better morals than atheists! I guess that these conservative Christians embrace the idea that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness for their sins and the slate is cleared, so they can get back out there and sin again. I don't know how any woman or decent man can remain in the Southern Baptist church.

I think we discussed this about a year or two ago. I guess the sex crimes were even worse than was previously thought.
In the interest of fairness, it's important to recognize that atheists get into trouble over allegations of sexual assault too. David Silverman, for example, allegedly sexually assaulted women when he worked as a "firebrand atheist" for the American Atheists.
Of course they do. To clarify, I was being a bit sarcastic because of the thread I started awhile back about atheist morality, where a few atheist members denied the statistics that favored atheists over theists when it comes to morality. Nobody ever said that all atheists are morally upright or all Christians are immoral sex offenders.
I understand what you were saying, and I don't disagree. I was just trying to add a bit more balance to the discussion. I used to think that atheism is a cure for the ills of religion, but now I can see that it's a very imperfect cure. There's still plenty of ways atheists can act up with no gods involved.
Still, I've been a member of numerous atheist organizations and haven't known of any sexual abuse or assault happening among any of the members of those groups. I'm sure there are atheist men who sexually assault women or children, but It seems to be rather widespread among certain sects of Christianity, and we're finally learning more about that. And, some of this information was in the news a couple of years ago. The point is that it's even worse than previously thought.
It could be that men and women who are already prone to sexual abuse are attracted to Christianity as a place to hide, and that's why sexual assault is so often a problem among the clergy. As far as I can tell there's no way that Christian beliefs can cause sexually abusive behavior. However, a sexually abusive person might try to justify his or her behavior by claiming that we're all sinners in need of God's forgiveness, and he or she has been "washed in the blood of Jesus"! Ideology is like that: It has no causal power of its own, but it sure comes in handy when somebody gets into trouble.
 
I am shocked I tell you, shocked that there is sex abuse in the SBC.
What caused that abuse? Any guesses? Some people might say that sexual assault among the religious is caused by the sexual repression inherent in the New Testament.
Maybe partly. I think it's a power thing. People are taught to obey superstitious bullshit. When people are young and uninformed they are vulnerable. We need to tell our kids that no adults anywhere are better than you and can't force you to do things that are wrong. Parents are the worst enablers.

As for atheist sexual abuse vs theist sexual abuse, I've always been of the mind that atheists are supposed to be without morals and therefore shouldn't be trusted in any way. God eaters on the other hand can be trusted and should be trusted and culturally we cede them the high moral ground. That's the problem. We shouldn't cede the high ground to anyone based on anything else but behavior. Otherwise it's open prejudice, and dangerous, and gets kids hurt.
 
I used to think that atheism is a cure for the ills of religion, but now I can see that it's a very imperfect cure. There's still plenty of ways atheists can act up with no gods involved
Atheism is a cure for the ills of religion. It could hardly fail to be.

But clearly religion isn’t the root of all ills. Only religious people think religion is all important.

There are, of course, plenty of ways atheists can act up; But none of them are due to religious beliefs making them do cruel or stupid things.

Atheism is an improvement over theism. It doesn’t pretend to be, or need to be, a path to perfection. It just needs to be a little bit better, in order to be worthwhile.
 
I am shocked I tell you, shocked that there is sex abuse in the SBC.
What caused that abuse? Any guesses? Some people might say that sexual assault among the religious is caused by the sexual repression inherent in the New Testament.
Maybe partly.
I really don't see how the New Testament, as repressive as it appears to be, can cause sexual repression in people. I think people cause sexual repression in other people. The New Testament is just a way of justifying that repression.
I think it's a power thing. People are taught to obey superstitious bullshit. When people are young and uninformed they are vulnerable.
When I was young, I was told I must obey my elders. As a mere child, I had no power to resist. If they told me I must attend church, sing hymns, and pray, then I either did so, or I had to endure a beating.
We need to tell our kids that no adults anywhere are better than you and can't force you to do things that are wrong. Parents are the worst enablers.
We should also teach kids that they should only honor adults who act honorably. A father or mother may not deserve honor if he or she is physically, emotionally, or sexually abusive.
As for atheist sexual abuse vs theist sexual abuse, I've always been of the mind that atheists are supposed to be without morals and therefore shouldn't be trusted in any way. God eaters on the other hand can be trusted and should be trusted and culturally we cede them the high moral ground. That's the problem. We shouldn't cede the high ground to anyone based on anything else but behavior. Otherwise it's open prejudice, and dangerous, and gets kids hurt.
What you just described is a sneaky way employed by religious leaders to maintain belief in religious followers. Those followers don't want to be categorized with all those "immoral" atheists they've been told about, so to avoid such a fate, religious followers maintain belief in whatever God they've been told about.

I remember a Christian angrily telling me: "Atheists are perverts!" I wonder what he knew about his fellow Christians. After all, he was converted to Christianity by Jimmy Swaggart.
 
Last edited:
I am shocked I tell you, shocked that there is sex abuse in the SBC.
What caused that abuse? Any guesses? Some people might say that sexual assault among the religious is caused by the sexual repression inherent in the New Testament.
Uhhhh...let me think. Human nature? Twisted sexuality in our culture?

Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office by a young woman, and then said oral sex wasn't really sex. What is that about?

Us guys when growing up are told to kep eit in our pants, but we are not taught explicitly how to emotionally deal with sex drive.

I did not read it. Back in the 90s an ex nun wrote a book where she said in the RCC sex between nuns and preists is an oen secret.

For some reason many people seem squeamish talking about sex with their kids. Back in the 80s I watched a panel show talking about kids. Instead of penis a psychologist said wee-wee.

Power always corrupts, so to speak.

The 1983 congressional page sex scandal was a political scandal involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983, the House Ethics Committee recommended that Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages.[1] Though at least some of the sexual contact was not criminal, the committee felt "any sexual relationship between a member of the House of Representatives and a congressional page, or any sexual advance by a member to a page, represents a serious breach of duty." The Congressional Report found that in 1980, a year after entering office, Crane had sex four or five times at his suburban apartment with a female page and in 1973, the year he entered office, Studds invited a male page, who testified he felt no ill will towards Studds, to his Georgetown apartment and later on a two-week trip to Portugal. Both representatives admitted to the charges.[2]


Personally in the 70s I was driven by sex and ruined a few good relationships. I had no sex ed and no mnetoring on relationships, common for guys in my generation.

Girls were there to be seduced. There were girls who were easy, and girls you brought home to meet your parents.

Asa young kid somebody wold get a copy of his father's Playboy collection and kids would go off and oggle.

Sex supplements on TV imply if you are not ready as a guy 24/7 to get it up you are less than a manly man.

As kid I was imprinted with the James Bond Sean Connery male image. Women are targets of opportunity with no resposiblity or relationships. In the 80s in interview Connery said physically striking was appropriate if she got out of line. Young men in Portugal I think cjeerd as he drove by after the inteview was shown. The interview is probably online.

Etc, etc, et c....
 
Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office by a young woman, and then said oral sex wasn't really sex. What is that about?
The Republicans defined sex in the articles of impeachment and failed to include BJs. Under the standard set by the Republicans Clinton was right.

But this is a derail.
 
Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office by a young woman, and then said oral sex wasn't really sex. What is that about?
The Republicans defined sex in the articles of impeachment and failed to include BJs. Under the standard set by the Republicans Clinton was right.

But this is a derail.
You can not single out religion on sex abuse.

I was simply pointing out that sex abuse is everywhere. Like Hollywood where everybody men and women new it was going on and said nothing to protect their careers.
 
Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office by a young woman, and then said oral sex wasn't really sex. What is that about?
The Republicans defined sex in the articles of impeachment and failed to include BJs. Under the standard set by the Republicans Clinton was right.

But this is a derail.
You can not single out religion on sex abuse.

I was simply pointing out that sex abuse is everywhere. Like Hollywood where everybody men and women new it was going on and said nothing to protect their careers.
Your post doesn't seem to address anything I said in my post.
 
Maybe partly. I think it's a power thing.
This 👆 EXACTLY this.

Invariably, abusers are those who think they have power or want to have power. It makes no difference whether or not they are religious. These people crave the feeling that they have power over others.

That being said, this has been an open secret in the SBC for years now. The truth is that you will find power seeking individuals in all religious and non-religious communities. You can see it in this community on occasion too. It is less due to any given community’s teachings and more due to individuals who seek out places where they can dominate. It is just easier in communities where questioning the leadership is frowned upon.

This attitude is why I withdrew from my SBC church a while back. They made it clear that leadership was not to be questioned and I basically told them this was one girl who was not going to roll over and play dead just because they wanted it that way.

The SBC has unfortunately been headed down this road of top down leadership for many years due to power seeking people reaching prominence in the denomination. Now it is time to pay the piper.

Ruth
 
Maybe partly. I think it's a power thing.
This 👆 EXACTLY this.

Invariably, abusers are those who think they have power or want to have power. It makes no difference whether or not they are religious. These people crave the feeling that they have power over others.

That being said, this has been an open secret in the SBC for years now. The truth is that you will find power seeking individuals in all religious and non-religious communities. You can see it in this community on occasion too. It is less due to any given community’s teachings and more due to individuals who seek out places where they can dominate. It is just easier in communities where questioning the leadership is frowned upon.

This attitude is why I withdrew from my SBC church a while back. They made it clear that leadership was not to be questioned and I basically told them this was one girl who was not going to roll over and play dead just because they wanted it that way.

The SBC has unfortunately been headed down this road of top down leadership for many years due to power seeking people reaching prominence in the denomination. Now it is time to pay the piper.

Ruth
Bily Carter left the SBC too over rhrtoric.
 
Power always corrupts, so to speak.
There is a relationship between corruption and power in that they tend to either increase or decrease together, but which of the two causes the other if either one causes the other? I think it's unlikely that power can corrupt an otherwise virtuous person because if that person has what she needs and wants via her power, then she feels no need to lie or steal or kill to get what she wants or needs. On the other hand, I think corruption can empower. If I'm a "perfect liar," for example, in that I can get anybody to believe any lie I tell, then the world is mine! I can lie to men making them believe they need to give me their money. I can lie to beautiful women convincing them they must have sex with me. I can run for public office telling the voters my perfect lies and win the election.

So my "perfect-liar model" seems to fit some of the corrupt clergy we hear about in the news. Religious leaders can get at least some people to believe their lies and gain power as a result. For instance, religious leaders tell their followers in one breath to pray and God will provide their needs, and in the next breath ask for their money and get it! Their followers don't realize that the leader isn't practicing what he preaches in that he doesn't pray for his money but needs to accept donations from them. It's the perfect con-game, the perfect lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom