Follow TV Tropes

Following

History WMG / UndergroundZealot

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


!! The Underground Zealot trilogy is a prequel to {{Left Behind}}

to:

!! The Underground Zealot trilogy is a prequel to {{Left Behind}}
''Literature/{{Left Behind}}''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
fixed hotlink


This one is actually {{Word Of God}} as per Jerry Jenkins' Facebook page. See here: http://emlia.org/quickgal/1480777792jerry%20jenkins%20zealot%20LB.png

to:

This one is actually {{Word Of God}} as per Jerry Jenkins' Facebook page. See here: http://emlia.org/quickgal/1480777792jerry%20jenkins%20zealot%20LB.pngorg/pmwiki/pub/web/Tripocalypse.UZLBLink.html
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
added jenkins FB page


We're naturally supposed to believe that the zealots were unarmed and the army murdered them all. But we never get a POV description of these attacks. In practice it is the word of Straight and one mortally wounded Christian who supposedly was an informer against that of Ranold, Bia and every single soldier. Straight especially has a lot of reason to make Paul think the zealots are innocent victims, as he's the one who recruited Paul to his cause for the express purpose of the information he could get from a high Ranking NPO agent. Ranold and Bia on the other hand make their claims of self-defense in private conversations with Paul whom they still (stupidly) assume is a loyal NPO agent with a significant bodycount of dead Christians of his own. There's not really any pressing reason for them to think they need to lie, but they stick to their claim that the zealots attacked them. And we never get conclusive proof that this really wasn't the case. (Later they describe in detail how they tortured one of the zealots for information, which was obviously evil, but note they don't seem to feel the need to lie about that. And to be fair, said woman had previously worked with the zealots to destroy LA's water supply and her only objection was that it wasn't practically possible, and was aware the other zealots were preparing to do so via supernatural means, so she wasn't innocent either.)

to:

We're naturally supposed to believe that the zealots were unarmed and the army murdered them all. But we never get a POV description of these attacks. In practice it is the word of Straight and one mortally wounded Christian who supposedly was an informer against that of Ranold, Bia and every single soldier. Straight especially has a lot of reason to make Paul think the zealots are innocent victims, as he's the one who recruited Paul to his cause for the express purpose of the information he could get from a high Ranking NPO agent. Ranold and Bia on the other hand make their claims of self-defense in private conversations with Paul whom they still (stupidly) assume is a loyal NPO agent with a significant bodycount of dead Christians of his own. There's not really any pressing reason for them to think they need to lie, but they stick to their claim that the zealots attacked them. And we never get conclusive proof that this really wasn't the case. (Later they describe in detail how they tortured one of the zealots for information, which was obviously evil, but note they don't seem to feel the need to lie about that. And to be fair, said woman had previously worked with the zealots to destroy LA's water supply and her only objection was that it wasn't practically possible, and was aware the other zealots were preparing to do so via supernatural means, so she wasn't innocent either.))

!! The Underground Zealot trilogy is a prequel to {{Left Behind}}

This one is actually {{Word Of God}} as per Jerry Jenkins' Facebook page. See here: http://emlia.org/quickgal/1480777792jerry%20jenkins%20zealot%20LB.png
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


We're naturally supposed to believe that the zealots were unarmed and the army murdered them all. But we never get a POV description of these attacks. In practice it is the word of Straight and one mortally wounded Christian who supposedly was an informer against that of Ranold, Bia and every single soldier. Straight especially has a lot of reason to make Paul think the zealots are innocent victims, as he's the one who recruited Paul to his cause for the express purpose of the information he could get from a high Ranking NPO agent. Ranold and Bia on the other hand make their claims of self-defense in private conversations with Paul whom they still (stupidly) assume is a loyal NPO agent with a significant bodycount of dead Christians of his own. There's not really any pressing reason for them to think they need to lie, but they stick to their claim that the zealots attacked them. And we never get conclusive proof that this really was the case. (Later they describe in detail how they tortured one of the zealots for information, which was obviously evil, but note they don't seem to feel the need to lie about that. And to be fair, said woman had previously worked with the zealots to destroy LA's water supply and her only objection was that it wasn't practically possible, and was aware the other zealots were preparing to do so via supernatural means, so she wasn't innocent either.)

to:

We're naturally supposed to believe that the zealots were unarmed and the army murdered them all. But we never get a POV description of these attacks. In practice it is the word of Straight and one mortally wounded Christian who supposedly was an informer against that of Ranold, Bia and every single soldier. Straight especially has a lot of reason to make Paul think the zealots are innocent victims, as he's the one who recruited Paul to his cause for the express purpose of the information he could get from a high Ranking NPO agent. Ranold and Bia on the other hand make their claims of self-defense in private conversations with Paul whom they still (stupidly) assume is a loyal NPO agent with a significant bodycount of dead Christians of his own. There's not really any pressing reason for them to think they need to lie, but they stick to their claim that the zealots attacked them. And we never get conclusive proof that this really was wasn't the case. (Later they describe in detail how they tortured one of the zealots for information, which was obviously evil, but note they don't seem to feel the need to lie about that. And to be fair, said woman had previously worked with the zealots to destroy LA's water supply and her only objection was that it wasn't practically possible, and was aware the other zealots were preparing to do so via supernatural means, so she wasn't innocent either.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


The book treats peace on Earth as if it's undisputedly and a ''bad'' thing (unless it's explicitly under Jesus's rule), and the [=RTCs=] keep contradicting their own claim that they're just peaceful and want to be left alone. They were even going to sabotage LA's water supply ''themselves'' before they found out it couldn't be done and resorted to praying for it. Seriously, with the shenanigans they keep pulling in the book it becomes ''really'' hard to believe that they're somehow the only religious sect in the world ''not'' responsible.

to:

The book treats peace on Earth as if it's undisputedly and a ''bad'' thing (unless it's explicitly under Jesus's rule), and the [=RTCs=] keep contradicting their own claim that they're just peaceful and want to be left alone. They were even going to sabotage LA's water supply ''themselves'' before they found out it couldn't be done and resorted to praying for it. Seriously, with the shenanigans they keep pulling in the book it becomes ''really'' hard to believe that they're somehow the only religious sect in the world ''not'' responsible.responsible.

!! The zealots in Los Angeles were armed terrorists who attacked the army.
We're naturally supposed to believe that the zealots were unarmed and the army murdered them all. But we never get a POV description of these attacks. In practice it is the word of Straight and one mortally wounded Christian who supposedly was an informer against that of Ranold, Bia and every single soldier. Straight especially has a lot of reason to make Paul think the zealots are innocent victims, as he's the one who recruited Paul to his cause for the express purpose of the information he could get from a high Ranking NPO agent. Ranold and Bia on the other hand make their claims of self-defense in private conversations with Paul whom they still (stupidly) assume is a loyal NPO agent with a significant bodycount of dead Christians of his own. There's not really any pressing reason for them to think they need to lie, but they stick to their claim that the zealots attacked them. And we never get conclusive proof that this really was the case. (Later they describe in detail how they tortured one of the zealots for information, which was obviously evil, but note they don't seem to feel the need to lie about that. And to be fair, said woman had previously worked with the zealots to destroy LA's water supply and her only objection was that it wasn't practically possible, and was aware the other zealots were preparing to do so via supernatural means, so she wasn't innocent either.)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

!! The Real True Christians™ actually ''started'' WorldWarIII in a misguided attempt to bring about Christ's return
The book treats peace on Earth as if it's undisputedly and a ''bad'' thing (unless it's explicitly under Jesus's rule), and the [=RTCs=] keep contradicting their own claim that they're just peaceful and want to be left alone. They were even going to sabotage LA's water supply ''themselves'' before they found out it couldn't be done and resorted to praying for it. Seriously, with the shenanigans they keep pulling in the book it becomes ''really'' hard to believe that they're somehow the only religious sect in the world ''not'' responsible.

Top