tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post2797119651444899835..comments2023-09-18T07:21:34.847-07:00Comments on Church Bell: Zeitgeist-Style PolemicsLiberty Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12583326798091256934noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138557428741983246.post-29772388223450263412017-04-09T07:07:15.597-07:002017-04-09T07:07:15.597-07:00disclosure: i was a big fan of Z when it came out,...disclosure: i was a big fan of Z when it came out, and my young brain soaked it in...but now I know better. That said, I'm not sure if the overall point was "comparative religious study", or about what god came first and is therefore derivative. The logic they presented was not linear, IMO, but only served to show the formulaic design of the "savior god"/wounded man narrative. Z is obviously not the place where someone would found citations or normal historiography...it's a "documentary". Also, I think it served to show where the esoteric aspects of these gods come into agreement. If you're open to the possibilities, the blood, virgin birth, cross, pine tree, etc. are all symbols of a more perennial logic/mythology that is older than Christianity. PS i'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that the makers of Z relied heavily on Jordan Maxwell's work - which is another story entirely...interesting, but, other. Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it. Daathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11556426122251141783noreply@blogger.com