[The schizophrenic portrayal of events in contemporary cartoons may be closer to the truth than regular adult programming.
Sudden turns of events portray the stock characters as they really are, fools.
They are creatures who only recognize themselves according to their idol.]
[The Progressive button cannot continue to hide the buttonhole of God’s opening to love.
When will viewers and critics realize that they are watching the same moral lesson over and over again in mainstream television dramas and comedies? Why do the characters never really develop into human beings?
Look how TV, as a way of talking, exploits.
Only when the button slips from the buttonhole will we find virtue, as well as our own shameful undoing.
This will come long after most of us have turned, from television, to other ways of talking.]
[The Progressive button covers the buttonhole of God’s opening to love.
The Progressive button is constructed of the insidious pairing of hero (standing in for television producers and other power mongers) and victim (standing in for disempowered viewers) in mutual ‘love (agape)’ against the bad one, a manifestation of Progressive theological projections.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 72 and 73
[Consider the metaphor of the button and the buttonhole.
The buttonhole of ‘God’s opening to love (agape)’ expects a button that proceeds from grace and requires conversion.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 72 and 73
Schoonenberg wrote about ‘the inability to love’.
[The term, ‘love’, has been redefined (by Progressives) as ‘something that does not require conversion and does not proceed from grace’.
How convenient.]
[Televisionaries transformed ‘love (agape)’ into ‘something that does not proceed from grace and that requires no conversion’. They have transformed ‘freedom’ into ‘celebrity and slavery’.
The real victims are the unsuspecting folk who do not watch Progressive television.
They have no idea what is going on, especially when they are suddenly branded as ‘bad ones’.]
[Progressive television – ideological broadcasting – redefines ‘freedom’ as ‘without obligations’.
Yet, when the hero saves the victim (standing in for the disempowered viewer), the victim is emotionally obligated to the hero (standing in for the television producers and their Progressive religions).
These redefinitions produce an idol of unreal love (where television elites and disempowered viewers are united in hatred against a foe).
These redefinitions produce differential freedoms (the television elites are not obligated to the viewer victims, but the viewer victims are emotionally obligated to the elites).]
[Progressive television redefines ‘love (agape)’ as the hero and the victim uniting against an exploitive foe.
It does not matter that this exploiter is a literary creation (that does not exist in actuality).
The foe is portrayed in television reality.
We all know: Reality is not Real.]
[Clearly, the televisionaries redefine the term ‘love (agape)’ so that ‘it no longer proceeds from grace and no longer requires conversion’.
Such a redefinition allows a person to use the word ‘love (agape)’ along with the word ‘free’, where ‘free’ means ‘without obligation’. The movie ‘hero’ is ‘free’ to ‘love the victim’. But this is not a love of equal standing. The victims can never repay their obligations.
Again, this expresses the attitude of royalty.
The hero obligates the victims by rescuing them. Plus, the hero reduces the victim’s freedom, or, should I say ‘self-esteem’.
Even stranger, the rescued victims are less obligated to defend themselves. The hero will take care of them.
Ah, royal patronage.]
[The unreal agape between ‘the television hero (who stands in for the elite producing the show)’ and ‘the movie victim (who stands in for the viewer, who cannot talk back to the screen, thus participates in the discourse as a victim)’ corresponds to mutual hatred of the person who is portrayed as the bad guy (a screen for projecting thinkanti-group).
The ‘heroes’ save the ‘victims’.
Why?
They are filled with unreal agape, a scripted and conditional love of one’s fellow human.
Is that not a character of royalty? ]
