It seems that this blog now seems to be asserting that Christianity has something to fear from an honest, dispassionate, review of the first four centuries of the Church.

I would be the first to concede that there are some difficulties with the historical record when it comes to proving Papal Authority. However, this was raised and, for the most part, settled by the Protestant Reformation.

A mistake that many people make, even Christians, is to think that the Biblical texts, creeds etc... exist in some form of vacuum. Obviously, this is not the case. These texts came into being in a specific time period, and have been transmitted through history up to today.

The exact nature of the culture in which the texts originated (i.e. political, geographical, social, economic etc...), as well as that of the surrounding cultures is a key point of investigation in the interpretation and understanding of the Biblical texts. The goal of any good theologian/Biblical scholar is to first understand the setting before applying the Bible to modern times.

Similarly, the same degree of investigation takes place when looking at the decisions made by particular councils throughout Christian history.

That such investigation takes place is not wishful thinking on my part and I have had reason to study this area in great detail myself. What I find is that this investigation only affirms and strengthens the 'status-quo' of understanding that has been handed down, in an unbroken chain of understanding, to the present time.

As I have said before, go ahead and investigate for yourself. The problem that Christians have DVC is that the majority of people will swallow the lies wholesale and never bother to check for themselves.

The books of History have never been closed. Rather, our hearts and minds are closed to what this history might tell us.

Interesting that Bill Muhlenber's critics, rather than supporting Dan Brown's DVC, are attempting to say that Jesus did not even exist, and also attacking the Bible itself as false.

It reminds me of the quote applicable to Christianity and its attackers: "The storm hurls its fury at The Rock, but The Rock still stands".

Big Al 30, why is it surprising to you that the secular world would not spend much energy attacking a work of fictional literature?

If the Rock of Christianity is withstanding all these storms, then why does it feel so threatened by an airport novel?

If you really feel the need to put disclaimers on books full of unsubstantiated (and academically discredited) claims, start with the Bible.

Dewi,

The answer to your question is quite simple, and it is a point that I had hoped to have made in my previous posts.

Let’s set something straight. Christians do not feel personally threatened by DVC. However, Christians are extremely concerned by the DVC for the following reasons (as presented from a Christian's worldview):

- There is a battle that takes place for the soul of each individual, the outcome of which determines who will spend eternity in heaven and who will spend eternity in hell.

- Humans are wired to rebel against God, and ideas that appeal to this rebellion are typically incorporated into a person’s anti-God defence without any investigation.

- Christian evangelists already spend far too much time combating the false ideas of evolution and post-modern relativistic thought, without having to tackle the distortions of the DVC.

- The DVC directly attacks the only means of salvation that exists for humankind; forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, the incarnation of Jehovah God, the creator of the universe.

Unlike what is presented in the DVC, Christianity is not concerned about preserving some earthly kingdom. On the contrary, Christians are greatly concerned about the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, and seeing as many people as possible saved from the destruction of hell.

So, to continue the analogy: "The rock stands firm, along with those who have built their lives upon it. But the rock has an enemy that will use propaganda like the DVC to make the sinking-sand look oh so appealing."

Faithful...

So, you think the DVC poses a risk to souls.

Let's leave aside for a moment that the book is presented as a fictional narrative, and assume that people are unthinkingly swallowing its claims.

Enter the Christians. To defend the souls, they start throwing around some dramatic language about "destruction of souls in Hell" and "knowing the Truth through the acceptance of Jesus Christ", as you have been doing.

Why would - or should - people be any more likely to swallow these notions than the ideas of one Dan Brown? When answering this question, avoid the use of circular reasoning, or the frankly patronising fallback: "I, being one of the saved, Just Know Better than you do."

I, too, see a threat to souls, but Dan Brown could do no more damage than a wasted afternoon and some dismay at the state of modern literature. No, the real threat is of people wasting their lives; persecuting others for their religion, sex, culture, or race; and polluting our science and politics; all in the name of their personal favourite deity (and their personal favourite interpretation of millennia-old manuscripts).

Dewi, your Q.1 I expected Muhlengerg's critics to defend Dan Brown's rubbish. They seem to be ignoring it to attack the core beliefs of Christianity.

Q.2 When people such as Brown attempt to distort and tell outright lies about an organisation and cherished beliefs which are a valuable part of your life, then it's time stand up and defend the beliefs under attack.

Unfortunately some readers and cinema goers are taking the DVC as fact. They believe there is a conspiracy, and conspiracy theories are popular these days. ranging from JFK to Jesse James to members of the Kelly Gang, even the Moon landing by Armstrong and Aldren. We just can't lie down and hope it will go away.

As the much quoted words of Edmund Burke declare: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".