Donald Trump has exposed 'evangelical' voters

[Danmark]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

[marco]

If our governments were determined to stop terrorism on European soil the basics are pretty simple. Stop funding and training radical groups. Pressure our allies like Saudi Arabia to stop funding them. End the drone program. Get American and Western troops out of the middle East. Stop trying to topple governments and destabilise the region. And begin to repair the damage with massive aid and rebuilding packages. It is not a perfect answer but as the long history of Northern Ireland proves security clampdowns do not make us safer.

Of course governments have a lot to answer for. The situation in Northern Ireland was the result of horrendous unfairness shown to the Catholic minority. Effectively Britain was at war in the seventies with the IRA, with paramilitaries joining in. I suppose the early forties were worse than now, so there is much to cheer about.

[WinePusher]

My position arises from the close proximity of death to my doorstep, not from opinions of a politician.

With the greatest respect to you, I think that when one is sitting close to the fire, one can certainly comment on the heat.

Thanks for your perspective marco. Often times in the west, our government officials seem interested only in securing our own borders and ensuring safety in our own countries (as they should be). Yet, there are millions of people living in brutally oppressive countries who fear for their lives daily, primarily in the Middle East but also in North Korea. The fact that in the 21st century, institutions such as NATO, the UN and the major nations of the world stand idly around without taking major action to end these atrocities is beyond me.

There needs to be a reformation in not only Islam, but also among so called progressive liberals who claim to support women's rights and gay rights, but ignore the atrocities against woman and gays committed by Muslims only to continuously criticize pro life, anti gay marriage Christians. These so called progressive liberals, whom Bill Maher and Sam Harris have appropriately labeled regressive leftists, do nothing but unknowingly apologize for radical Islam.

[Elijah John]

My position arises from the close proximity of death to my doorstep, not from opinions of a politician.

With the greatest respect to you, I think that when one is sitting close to the fire, one can certainly comment on the heat.

Thanks for your perspective marco. Often times in the west, our government officials seem interested only in securing our own borders and ensuring safety in our own countries (as they should be). Yet, there are millions of people living in brutally oppressive countries who fear for their lives daily, primarily in the Middle East but also in North Korea. The fact that in the 21st century, institutions such as NATO, the UN and the major nations of the world stand idly around without taking major action to end these atrocities is beyond me.

There needs to be a reformation in not only Islam, but also among so called progressive liberals who claim to support women's rights and gay rights, but ignore the atrocities against woman and gays committed by Muslims only to continuously criticize pro life, anti gay marriage Christians. These so called progressive liberals, whom Bill Maher and Sam Harris have appropriately labeled regressive leftists, do nothing but unknowingly apologize for radical Islam.

Actually, I think Maher, to his credit has made the very same point. And criticizes radical Islam too, for the reasons you have given., ie the murder and oppression of women and homosexuals.

[marco]

Actually, I think Maher, to his credit has made the very same point. And criticizes radical Islam too, for the reasons you have given., ie the murder and oppression of women and homosexuals.

We are in the habit of according respect to different cultures and this is no bad thing. There are however practices that must earn condemnation such as female circumcision. When I was in Norway I learned that it was customary for young girls to be sent to Africa to have this horrendous practice done. Little girls sometimes die in the process. The treatment of women in Saudi Arabia was bravely condemned by a Swedish politician, who suffered a backlash for opening her mouth. When homosexuals are thrown from high buildings to their deaths, it is time to ask what is the inspiration for such horrors.

In this forum we mock Christianity's superstitions. We have much larger and more dangerous ones on our doorstep.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 124 by marco]

In this forum we mock Christianity's superstitions.

That is how you express your opinions here. Some share those opinions and some don't. Each to their own.

We have much larger and more dangerous ones on our doorstep.

Yes, that deserve more than mockery.

[Volbrigade]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

The title of this thread intrigues me.

I have not digested its entire 13 pages. One question:

has "evangelical" been defined? What, precisely, is an "evangelical"?

[marco]

[Replying to post 124 by marco]

In this forum we mock Christianity's superstitions.

That is how you express your opinions here. Some share those opinions and some don't. Each to their own.

We have much larger and more dangerous ones on our doorstep.

Yes, that deserve more than mockery.

Dear checkpoint, you have misunderstood me and taken almost the opposite meaning from my words.

When I said: "On this forum we mock Christianity" I thought that the only meaning you could take was REGRETFULLY. I followed it by saying there are bigger concerns than attacking Christianity so the suggestion was Christianity isn't doing us any harm and perhaps it should not be mocked.

There are things in Christianity I disagree with; there are people in Christianity that I love. On this occasion I was more defending. Perhaps instead of using "we" it would have been better to say, "people".

You give me a hard time, my friend.

[Elijah John]

I was raised as an evangelical. I WAS an evangelical. It is clear that Trump is not an authentic evangelical; he knows next to nothing about the Bible and has lived and continues to live and promote a lifestyle that is antithetical to evangelical Christianity.
Yet he is doing very well, better than any other Republican candidate, among evangelicals.

My conclusion is that evangelicals care much more about secular politics than about true Christian values. Has Trump support among 'evangelicals' exposed the fact the 'evangelical voting block' is not based on Christian values, but on secular political values?

The title of this thread intrigues me.

I have not digested its entire 13 pages. One question:

has "evangelical" been defined? What, precisely, is an "evangelical"?

Danmark may define it differently, but Evangelicals are "born-again", fundamentalist Christians who tend to be literalists.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 127 by marco]

Dear checkpoint, you have misunderstood me and taken almost the opposite meaning from my words.

Oops, sorry about that, chief!

You give me a hard time, my friend.

I do?

Well, I write as I see it, and let the chips fall where they may.

It isn't my intention to give anyone a hard time, except maybe a trifler or a troll if they turn up.

I'm a newbie and still figuring out where others stand. Thanks for pointing out I got it wrong in my response to your post.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Ah! Thanks.

That's seems a workable definition to me.

It's just that I see polls that put the "Evangelical" vote as high as 30% of the electorate. While I wish it were the case there so many people are genuine believers in Jesus Christ, saved by his redemptive grace, I find that hard to square with my own experience. I would put the actual number at around 5-10%, tops --possibly far less.

I find "Evangelical" to be a nebulous term -- even more so than "conservative".

I.e., I think in both cases, it can be applied to people who have opposing viewpoints. It is generally used and applied by those who have little to no understanding of what conservatism is; and even less what Christianity is.

To the topic:

I cannot see how anyone who has a genuine belief in Christ, and a mature understanding of Scripture, could in amy way put their support behind a man like Donald Trump.