Oh, okay, so joshuabgood edited 16-year-old to "child". I agree it's not good for anyone to lust in their heart after someone else, but that particular edit seems handcrafted to be overly sensational. The allegation is that:
Jonathan Merritt, the journalist who brought everyone’s attention to The Baptist Blogger’s audio, also notes that saying despicable things isn’t a one-time problem for Patterson. Just check out this sermon he gave in 2014, around the 21:15 mark. He tells a story of two teenage boys who were hitting on an underage girl… something he jokingly defended as biblical:
This is a ridiculous level of pearl-clutching. Are we supposed to pretend that teenage boys don't flirt with teenage girls, or that doing so is somehow wrong?
16 year olds aren’t children?
joshuabgood said:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on his lust of a child?
A more accurate statement would be "his lust of a teenage girl" or "his lust of a teenager", which is not nearly as salacious. Except that wasn't even Mr. Patterson's quote. A more accurate statement would have been:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on a teenage boy's lust or flirtation with a teenage girl?
joshuabgood, I suppose you can tell us if your intention was to imply that Mr. Patterson was talking about "his lust of a child" as a way to create ambiguity and possibly imply something far more serious than talking about teenage boys lusting after or flirting with a teenage girl, or if you made an innocent mistake.
Oh, okay, so joshuabgood edited 16-year-old to "child". I agree it's not good for anyone to lust in their heart after someone else, but that particular edit seems handcrafted to be overly sensational. The allegation is that:
This is a ridiculous level of pearl-clutching. Are we supposed to pretend that teenage boys don't flirt with teenage girls, or that doing so is somehow wrong?
16 year olds aren’t children?
joshuabgood said:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on his lust of a child?
A more accurate statement would be "his lust of a teenage girl" or "his lust of a teenager", which is not nearly as salacious. Except that wasn't even Mr. Patterson's quote. A more accurate statement would have been:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on a teenage boy's lust or flirtation with a teenage girl?
joshuabgood, I suppose you can tell us if your intention was to imply that Mr. Patterson was talking about "his lust of a child" as a way to create ambiguity and possibly imply something far more serious than talking about teenage boys lusting after or flirting with a teenage girl, or if you made an innocent mistake.
Teenagers are children. You don’t get to split hairs to make this sound less creepy.
1 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Oh, okay, so joshuabgood edited 16-year-old to "child". I agree it's not good for anyone to lust in their heart after someone else, but that particular edit seems handcrafted to be overly sensational. The allegation is that:
This is a ridiculous level of pearl-clutching. Are we supposed to pretend that teenage boys don't flirt with teenage girls, or that doing so is somehow wrong?
16 year olds aren’t children?
joshuabgood said:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on his lust of a child?
A more accurate statement would be "his lust of a teenage girl" or "his lust of a teenager", which is not nearly as salacious. Except that wasn't even Mr. Patterson's quote. A more accurate statement would have been:
What kind of religion is it that permits Paige Patterson, also a founder of the SBC conservative resurgence, to openly in church opine on a teenage boy's lust or flirtation with a teenage girl?
joshuabgood, I suppose you can tell us if your intention was to imply that Mr. Patterson was talking about "his lust of a child" as a way to create ambiguity and possibly imply something far more serious than talking about teenage boys lusting after or flirting with a teenage girl, or if you made an innocent mistake.
He sexualized and objectified a child, a minor. I have had a 16 year old daughter and for him, preacher of the conservatice resurgence to objectify them, in a sermon is ridiculous. 3000 women agreed and so did, finally, the SBC and they then fired him. And this was after his long history of other objectional comments to women and hiding Paul Pressler sexual abuse.
But you I guess think it is ok or not that bad. Well suffice it to say we seenit differently.
JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:36 pm
Would his statement have been more acceptable to you if he’d said they were 18?
His statement sexualizing and objectifying a child wasn't right. Sexualizing an adult also isn't right. You want to be gros s towards an adult across the pulpit as a preacher, that is also unconscionable.
What exactly is your point?
My point is, the cesspool of clergy sexual abuse and impropeiety in the SBC is something that perhaps deserves equal focus and probably more than this political posturing. The fact that these two, Pressler and Patterson were the architects of the socalled conservative resurgence is especially gross. Do you really disagree with that?
Last edited by joshuabgood on Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:36 pm
Would his statement have been more acceptable to you if he’d said they were 18?
If Patterson had said she was 18, it still would’ve been gross. Because it wasn’t just about age — it was about a man in spiritual authority using the pulpit to objectify a girl. The fact that she was a minor just makes it worse. But even at 18, it’s still creepy, inappropriate, and a clear abuse of position. Why are you defending this?
2 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:36 pm
Would his statement have been more acceptable to you if he’d said they were 18?
If Patterson had said she was 18, it still would’ve been gross. Because it wasn’t just about age — it was about a man in spiritual authority using the pulpit to objectify a girl. The fact that she was a minor just makes it worse. But even at 18, it’s still creepy, inappropriate, and a clear abuse of position. Why are you defending this?
Also I almost guarantee you that story actually never even happened. I heard Southern Baptist preachers tell ridiculous stories to make sermon points when I was in VA, including the also disgraced Johnny Hunt. And also that crude way of speaking about women also isn't that uncommon. I used to cringe in the 90s the way some would talk about women.
His story also demeans the mother and simultaneously tried to make him look good and mature.
JohnH wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:36 pm
Would his statement have been more acceptable to you if he’d said they were 18?
If Patterson had said she was 18, it still would’ve been gross. Because it wasn’t just about age — it was about a man in spiritual authority using the pulpit to objectify a girl. The fact that she was a minor just makes it worse. But even at 18, it’s still creepy, inappropriate, and a clear abuse of position. Why are you defending this?
Also I almost guarantee you that story actually never even happened. I heard Southern Baptist preachers tell ridiculous stories to make sermon points when I was in VA, including the also disgraced Johnny Hunt. And also that crude way of speaking about women also isn't that uncommon. I used to cringe in the 90s the way some would talk about women.
Well, if one believes once-saved-always-saved like most SB's do, then why not make inappropriate comments across the pulpit. I once heard a Baptist preacher make the claim that "you can commit any sin, from the sin of adultery to the sin of murder, and it will not affect your eternal destiny". I was like... That was back in the 90s as well.
This stuff is really a problem with Baptist leaders isn't it? Here's another Baptist minister giving a sermon to his congregation of 20,000 at the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana, which at that time was the largest megachurch in the state of Indiana and 11th largest in the US. Apparently this was one of his popular "go-to" sermons and not some one-off error in judgement: https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Maga ... st-Church/ And speaking of perving over 16-year-olds, this guy was later convicted in federal court and sentenced to 12 years for transporting a 16 year old girl across state lines to Michigan to engage in sex (statutory rape). He was also the chancellor of Hyles Anderson College https://hylesanderson.edu/ a small Baptist college. And during his time in prison he was caught by his wife doing conjugal visits with other "girlfriends" who he had met as prison pen pals so that blew up his marriage, which apparently a conviction for statutory rape and child sex trafficking didn't do. So, you know, a good Baptist role model to lecture others about the sanctity of marriage.
Last edited by ohio jones on Thu Jun 12, 2025 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:video removed
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
That was back in the 90s as well.