The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
home
Thursday, May 24, 11:59 a.m.
Opinion

Op-Ed: Blindfolding truth by falsifying information disrespectful, deplorable

Most students come to the University of Maine to learn and can at least appreciate the efforts of those who strive to correct our wrong ideas. I have no respect for people who don’t understand what they are teaching.

Changing minds has to be taken seriously and based on legitimate thought and research because falsifying information is a way of blindfolding people to the truth. Unfortunately, Matthew Campbell’s previous article in The Maine Campus (“Religion a blindfold for the faithful and a prime source of evil in humanity,” Oct. 21) contained a lot of information that was not even remotely accurate.

In his article, Campbell alleged a lot of similarities between Jesus Christ and the ancient Egyptian deity Horus, his intention being to discredit Christianity and religion in general. One would assume he knows a lot about Horus in order to discredit the story of Jesus, but he gets even basic information wrong. Horus was the Egyptian god of the sky and war, not the god of the sun. Also, the earliest records of Horus date back to about 2350 B.C., not before 3000 B.C., as he claims.

He was not born on Dec. 25, but on the last day of the Egyptian month Khoiak, which for us would be around the middle of November. Anyway, this is irrelevant since despite tradition, Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25 either, but probably in the middle of spring. In addition, Isis, the mother of Horus, was definitely not a virgin; he had an older, jackal-headed brother named Anubis.

There is no legend of a star shining at his birth, or of any wise men coming to give gifts, though in one tradition, the young Horus was attended to by a giant scorpion. Does that count?

There is also no basis to support the idea that Horus was baptized, an explicitly Judeo-Christian practice, nor was he crucified; this form of Roman execution wouldn’t be invented for another 1500 years. In fact, Horus never even died, and therefore was never buried nor resurrected.

He did not have 12 disciples or students. He had four helpers; minor deities known as Heru-Shemsu. I can’t see any relation between Jesus’ 12 disciples, the Heru-Shemsu and the signs of the zodiac. The zodiac was a Babylonian invention, carried on by the Greeks and Romans, and had no relation to Egyptian mythology. There’s absolutely no evidence that the story of Horus came from early astrology.

While we’re on the subject of evidence, I want to point out that there is not a single legitimate scholar of any relevant field who believes Jesus of Nazareth is not a legitimate historical figure, as Campbell claims. University of Durham Professor Emeritus James Dunn has called this a “thoroughly dead thesis.” In actuality, there is more evidence supporting the historical life of Jesus Christ then there are accounts verifying the events of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Using an unbiased eye and the same criteria used to evaluate all other antique documents, the evidence of Jesus being a real person is completely overwhelming.

In addition, the biblical accounts of Jesus Christ were written with information given by eyewitnesses only a few decades after his death. Luke, one of the gospel writers, explicitly states that fact. Since these are eyewitness accounts, the story of Jesus cannot be legend.

Unfortunately for Campbell, the existence of Horus is decidedly mythological. You can’t compare historical figures with mythological ones.  It’s like comparing John F. Kennedy and Spider-Man. What can you do with that?

In Campbell’s article, he said he finds it sad when he encounters a “devout” who knows nothing about the origin of their faith. Yet this is exactly what I saw in last week’s issue; a devout who knew nothing about what he believes. His article was nothing but a series of claims pulled out of thin air, formulated into “truth” and used to condemn those who dare to think contrary to how he does. Campbell opens by saying, “I have no hope for humanity when flushing the toilet is such a difficult task for many.”

Fellow students, I have hope for this world if you seek the truth and flush misinformation like his down the drain.

Samuel Kiyanitsa is a third-year civil engineering student.

  • Erin

    Oh, the irony. You make several assertions that you declare as facts, that are in truth, false. Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. Check your dates. Read up on your Egyptian iconaclasty and religion, and I am most certain you will see that you presented many fallacies as facts.

    I, too, will have hope for this world, if you yourself seek some truth…

  • Serge

    Dear Erin,

    Please publish a rebuttal, if you think any information was misrepresented in this article. It’s one thing to make a claim of false representation of facts, it’s another thing to prove them.
    Aren’t you innocent until PROVEN guilty in this country. If you pose the accusation of academic dishonesty, please provide proof. Otherwise, state what you wrote as your OPINION/BELIEF!

    Sincerely,
    Serge

  • Erin

    Serge,

    Do not worry; I will be submitting a response to Maine Campus, where you can thereby read the evidence presented in the contrary.

    I will however, not include Wikipedia in my list of reputable sources. I hope that is not frowned upon.

    Best,
    Erin

  • Serge

    Erin,

    Glad you decided to dig into this.

    It’ll be good to see you, yourself, use “reputable” sources (other than “Zeitgeist”).

    Best Regards,
    Serge

  • Derek

    This article was well-written, concise, unbiased (except against willful misinformation), and I, as an agnostic, agree with it 100%. As far as Matt Campbell is concerned, I’d call his articles a joke, except they’re not funny.

    I’m an alum, so my Maine Campus op-ed days are over; but I’m glad to see that there’s still a shred of common sense leaking into the paper every once in a while. If Matt had written an article like this one to start with, perhaps I would have been more receptive. Instead he chose to be an arrogant dick about the whole thing ON TOP OF propagating falsehoods to further his own cause.

    I look forward to thoroughly demolishing Erin’s rebuttal. I imagine it will be as equally disappointing as the next Matt Campbell masterpiece.

  • Jerry

    Erin,

    In reference to your first post:

    “Iconoclasty” is spelled with two “o’s” and means the destruction of religious symbols, monuments, dogma, or traditions. I’m not sure how reading up on the desecration of Egyptian icons would have helped Sam write his article… Perhaps you meant to say “iconography”?

    Hopefully, you’ll have your terms and spellings right by the time you finish your rebuttal.

    Nice article, Mr. Kiyanitsa!

  • Erin

    Jerry,

    You are indeed correct; Iconography is what I was referring to. Thank you for the kind correction.

  • Sam K

    Erin,

    First off, I did not use Wikipedia. I used several reliable sources.

    Second, please explicitly state what was incorrect rather than claiming I was presenting fallacies.

    Thirdly, I would love to read your article. I get really excited when people earnestly look for truth. I have found the Truth. I hope you do too.

    Thank you for reading my article.

    ~Sam K

  • Religious Scholar

    Samuel Kiyanitsa should stick to civil engineering and leave historical scholarship to those versed in this tradition. Kiyanitsa provides little to no evidence for any of his assertions and clues us into his complete misunderstanding of this controversial issue at the end of his essay: You can in fact compare figures with historicity to pure creations were the former’s purported deeds and origins to be mythologized over centuries and borrowed from the latter. This is the case with Jesus Christ. His mythos borrows heavily from other myths in the region at the time.

  • Agitated Observer

    Religious “Scholar”,

    “Scholarship and Tradition”… how does that even work? The former refines its claims according to evidence provided… while the latter accepts claims as true- without evidence.

    You make claims and assertions, and yet you provide no substantiating proof! Please stop trying to cover up your lack of a cohesive argument with the puerile use of a writing style you probably discovered in your high school English class.

    The things that pass for scholarly investigation, I do declare it disheartens my perception of the future of this ubiquitous generation (don’t you see how ridiculous a false sense of eloquence sounds?).

    Please validate your claims, and I will gladly retract my criticism of you.

    Sincerely,
    AO