Why do some Christians see stories not aimed at them as an agenda?

[Anonymous]

A story focused on Voodoo would be attacked by Christians for being considered a demonic ideological agenda to manipulate Christians. A film with lesbian protagonists would be attacked for being an LGBT agenda. If a story doesn't have Christians as its target audience, how is an agenda being forced on Christians? That doesn't make sense. How can a story that doesn't even try to engage with Christians, but rather with its target audience, be trying to manipulate Christians?

[Anonymous]

I think some Christians have become so used to seeing the world through the lens of their faith that they struggle to separate something they personally disagree with from something that is actually being pushed on them. Not every story is made for Christians, and not every film that features beliefs or lifestyles outside Christianity is trying to convert anyone or attack their faith.

A story about Voodoo is allowed to explore that world, just as a film with lesbian characters is allowed to tell their stories. You don't have to agree with the subject matter to accept that other people are allowed to tell and enjoy those stories. Nobody is forcing you to watch them.

I think there's a difference between something being available for people to watch and something being forced on you. Sometimes people mistake the fact that something exists and receives attention for an agenda against their beliefs. And I don't think that's a fair way to look at storytelling. You can simply decide a story isn't for you and move on. 🙂

[Anonymous]

They can make "happy holidays" into a "war on Christmas". Really narcissistic bunch

[Lesbologist]

I'm starting to think that any identitarian (someone that defines who they are by some identity), all suffer from the same retardation. Like they all display the same behavior.

Like you know that joke, "How can you figure out someone is a Vegan, you don't have to because they're going to tell you about it," that's who I'm talking about. They make it they're identity and just run with it.

So you see it with these "some Christians" right? You'll see it with various SJW's and race hustlers as well... sexual identities anyone? lolz They all suffer from the same retardation in my opinion. It's the same damn pattern, and they just have different causes.

[slatyb]

Because they love to pretend they are being persecuted.

[BCRanger10]

I can't speak for all of us if it's "only some" you're referring to.

At any rate, I likewise think that it's a cultural thing rather than just Christians. Neither the Critical Drinker nor NerdRotic are practicing Christians and they go after LGBT and feminist messaging all the time in movies and TV shows. Additionally, with outlets like Angel Studios which mostly caters to Christians and conservatives, I wouldn't think it's as widespread of an issue as you think.

[AngryCarl3]

As someone who had Christian parents I feel qualified to explain. Christians don't just practise their religion, they are defined by it and they view the whole world through that lens. If you're not expressly supporting Christianity you are assumed to be attacking it. This goes double if you support some section of society that the Bible takes a dusty view of.

[BadApple69]

I’m christen and I don’t think those movies are “forced” on me. I can watch them or not, my choice. Mostly not.

[moddy_the_mod]

It's being forced on the culture as a whole.

[Asker]

So if someone creates a story set in Nigeria, based on African mythology, aimed at people interested in African mythology, would that still be an anti-Christian agenda? Doesn't it occur to you that Christians are not the center of the world?

[moddy_the_mod]

See this is where you have a misunderstanding of the central issue. The issue is that it's a story about medieval england about a known person in history and they're played by a black person with a gay sex scene shoehorned in.

[Asker]

Irrelevant. A story with a Black cast suffers attacks even when it's original. It's not necessary to change race for there to be problems; it's enough that the focus is on Black people and not on white saviors. Regarding LGBTQ+ stories, there's no definition of what's forced. A romance film between two gay men aimed at the LGBTQ+ target audience would still be considered an agenda by Christians even if the story doesn't try to interact with or target Christians.

[moddy_the_mod]

lol, not irrelevant - it's the point. And yeah, that's still not the issue. There's gay in every show on netflix.

[Asker]

The film Sinners was attacked by right-wing Christians just as The Little Mermaid was. Whether the story is original or not, the pattern of Christian behavior towards these stories is the same. Exactly, there are shows on Netflix with gay characters created for the LGBT audience that Christians choose to consume of their own free will, only to later claim to be victims of an agenda.

[moddy_the_mod]

Well yeah, sinners was hot garbage black revenge porn and the little mermaid is white. Should we get Nicholas cage to star in your film in Nigeria, based on African mythology, aimed at people interested in African mythology?

[Asker]

Hahahaha. It's funny how the pattern of responses is always the same. Sinners focuses on characters and states the obvious: the KKK is the arm of white supremacy. The only reason right-wing Christians are bothered by Sinners is because Sinners isn't afraid to show the past of white supremacist Christians. No normal white person is offended by a film that portrays the KKK as the villain. There's no revenge porn in Sinners; there are Christians who reject and are ashamed of their past. I love Nicholas cage, it would be hilarious to put him in a comedic African fantasy, hahahaha.

[moddy_the_mod]

lol the kkk is the arm of the democrats party. Your lack of understanding of history is hilarious.

Sinners was a trash movie that you dipshits prop up because you are virtue signaling.

[Asker]

The KKK was never actually founded or run by the Democratic Party as an organization. It started back in 1865 as a secret paramilitary group formed by Confederate veterans.
​The confusion comes from how different the parties were back then. In the 19th century, Southern conservatives who wanted to maintain segregation voted Democrat because, at that point in history, that’s where the regional conservative base was. But US politics completely flipped during the 1960s civil rights movement ironically under Democratic leadership. Once the Civil Rights Act passed, those Southern segregationists broke away from the party for good and shifted toward the Republican right.
​Trying to tie the KKK to today's Democratic party completely ignores how much politics changed over 150 years. The easiest way to look at it is simple: white supremacists haven't supported Democrats in over half a century, and they actively hate the modern party's platform. With all due respect, I honestly don't know if your problem is intellectual dishonesty or a lack of common sense. If the KKK were "democrat" in today's terms, David Duke and other supremacist leaders wouldn't have spent the last few decades campaigning against Democrats and aligned with the far-right. The KKK leader is right-wing and anti-democrats, but the KKK is democrat? Hahaha, common sense is something you should use.

[moddy_the_mod]

Ah the ole lie of “the parties switched”. You ate up every bit of propaganda fed to you at school.

[Asker]

Propaganda? That's a fact. It seems you call everything you don't like propaganda. The KKK leaders support Trump and vote Republican, that's a fact, whether you like it or not. It's not worth arguing with someone who rejects facts and says everything is simply an agenda. Have a good week!