1 post tagged “evil”
This is the first post in a series analyzing the claims made in the film/documentary/video Zeitgeist, which can be viewed in its entirity here. Follow this link to see all of my posts about this movie. Zeitgeist is a film in three parts that presents conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Federal Reserve Bank. I have decided to analyze the claims of the movie because some of them I know to be true, and some seem highly unlikely or based on inadequate information. An analysis of the movie should make for an interesting exercise in critical thinking. While I will be reviewing a large number of the claims made, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis or "debunking" of the film. And finally - this is a blog, not a scholarly text. I am an amateur doing amateur research. If you wish to criticize, do so, but be nice; don't hold me to the same academic standards you would a PhD writing his thesis.
Part I: The Greatest Story Ever Told
In this section, Zeitgeist examines the origins of Christianity. The overall argument of this part of the movie is that Christianity is ultimately based on astrology and has been molded into a tool for political control by individuals in power over the centuries.
The film starts with a basic description of astrology, the facts of which are well known and fit my basic understanding of the concept, so I won't bother with analyzing them. We all know that there are twelve astrological symbols, that each one corresponds to a constellation of the night sky, and so on.
One criticism I have seen in other blog comment threads about the movie is the fact that the film, early on, makes a connection between the term "God's Sun" and "God's Son." The criticism is that this correspondence in the words "sun" and "son" only works in English, and thus doesn't support the argument of the film. While this is a valid criticism, in that someone could take the film to mean that the similarity in "God's Sun" and "God's Son" is meaningful, the film never states this. It's arguable that the similarity is only pointed out for effect, not as support for the filmmaker's argument.
Claim 1: Horus was the Egyptian god representing the sun. Set was the god of darkness. Light versus dark or good versus evil is a duality that is common in many religions.
While it does appear to be true that Horus was a sun god of Egypt, it seems neither true that he was the only sun god in the Egyptian pantheon, nor was sun god his primary occupation. Horus was the god of the sky, kingship, and later in the Egyptian religion, the sun and the moon. Ra was also a sun god, and while in some traditions they were considered to be one in the same, they were sometimes depicted as father and son and sometimes as two completely separate entities. If one of the two had to be idenitified as the sun god of Egyptian mythology, it would probably be Ra, since the association was much more common.
Horus seems to have been a name given to a wide range of dieties, all fitting the same general concept of a god of royalty. He was the son of Osiris, one of the oldest gods of the Eyptian pantheon and in some traditions the creator, though most commonly the god of the underworld or afterlife. Horus being the son of the creator does seem to fit the film's claim that Horus is a model of Jesus, but Horus being the son of the god of the underworld does not, especially since Osiris is killed by his brother Set, an occurrence that has no corresponding action in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Set is a very bad god, as gods go. He was the god of chaos, hostility, evil, war, deserts, storms, and foreign lands. Oh, yeah, and people with red hair. And homosexuals. Despite him basically being "the devil" of the Egyptian gods, there were worshippers, since being in good with a god who had power over the desert and sandstorms could be pretty handy, and he was considered the patron god of desert caravans. It does appear that some traditions see Horus as being the god of the day while Set is the god of the night.
As far as light versus dark or good versus evil being a common theme in the world religions, numerous examples can be found. The concept of Yin and Yang in Asian philosophies is an obvious one. Others would include Zoroastrianism, another monotheistic religion. However, it may be just as valid to say that while the concept of evil or at least malevolence exists in polytheistic religions, the concept of a clear duality between good and evil is not a readily apparent. Even in the ancient Egyptian religion, Set was evil, but not without his uses or worshippers.
An analog of Set in most other polytheistic religions can be found, often with just as ambiguous a role. In the way that Set is the god of confusion and chaos, in Navajo mythology, Coyote could be seen has carrying on a similar part in the cosmic play, and yet Coyote is useful because through his foolish trouble-making he teaches valuable lessons in the traditional stories. The Norse god Loki, likewise, is not so much evil as mischievious and troublesome. The Hindu god Shiva is described as being a destroyer, the opposite of Vishnu, the protector, and yet Shiva is alternately described as a terrible and delightful, and has worshippers today, and within the Smartist denomination of Hinduism is considered one of five aspects of the same supreme being. [Note: And Christianity thought it was being daring in putting three gods in one? Amateurs.]
My conclusions for Claim 1 are as follows:
While it is true that Horus was a sun god of ancient Egyptian mythology and that Set was sometimes viewed as the god of night or darkness, to state that as an essential duality within the Egyptian religion is an incredible simplification of Egyptian mythology. While it is also true that the concept of dualities between light-and-dark and good-and-evil can be found in other religions, it is also not as clear or universal as the film implies.
And right about now I'm thinking that if I spend this much time on every claim in the movie, this is going to take years. But at least it will be interesting! For me, that is; I don't know about you, dear reader.
