Or, as Hugh Laurie once put it:

"For evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to spout cliches."

“With over 40 million copies of the book sold into 44 different languages, it is having a huge impact. And the film will expose even more people to its spurious claims.”

People are free to choose what they read and what they do not. They are free to pray to the God of their choice.
If a religious institution is so frail of character, weak in the face of an alternative perspective or devoid of moral merit that it would be threatened and thus seek to control and censor the reading material of the general public, then the world will be better off without it.

“Although a novel, Dan Brown clearly states in it - and on his website - that it is accurate, based on fact and solid research.”

It is not the first novel ever written, if we are to talk about fiction, most of the bible could be similarly construed as the work of fiction, including Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

“The subject matter of the book is vitally important. Indeed, it concerns someone who is arguably the most important person in human history: Jesus Christ.”

Plenty of books around about Jesus Christ, I was unaware any individual and institution had a right of veto over who should write about him.

So why is Bill so paranoid about those of us who think for ourselves reading or viewing this “fiction”. I for one have seen the movie and found it entertaining, although the twists of the plot were a little “predictable”

But even if it were true, would that be so bad?
How far would the Churches go to suppress or deal with the revelation?
I, for one, could not care less what they do, so long as they don’t think they will curtail who and what I choose to worship, believe or read.

Big Al 30, you say you "expected Muhlengerg's critics to defend Dan Brown's rubbish".

And defend it we have: Dan Brown has every right to pen a novel. He even has a right to voice his opinion about historical matters, even if his opinion turns out to be wrong.

The anti-DVC brigade is doing the same thing: circulating their Holy Book and making lofty claims about its factual accuracy. But they overstep the mark (in a way that Dan Brown does not) when they attempt to stifle alternative opinions.

You say that Brown's "attempt to distort and tell outright lies about an organisation and cherished beliefs" compells you to "stand up and defend the beliefs under attack", but he could easily say the same of you. Indeed, so could anybody who values freedom of expression or the process of historical inquiry.

For what it's worth, I disagree with both Dan Brown and the Evangelists, but the latter seem quite eager to fulfill his prophesy about suppressive monks.

DEWI, You and your fellow athiests or whatever have not defended Brown's rubbish. You have defended his right to write it, which I have not even called into question.

He can write what he likes, but we have the right to respond by pointing out its inaccuracies and sheer fabrications. And we will.

Jedi Knight is now a religion appearing on the UK census form, or so I seem to remember reading.

Faith is a funny thing: the need for it disappears in the face of absolute certainty. But, people crave certainty. Debates, wars, and public relations cannot remove doubt from any faith (including atheism - the faith that there is no deity), but they seem to be the main means attempted.

Thus do I cling to my doubts. (apologies for the poor attempt at irrationality, it was the best I could muster)

odsoc

It seems that ultimately much of this debate boils down to an incompatibility between two different worldviews - that of the Christians and that of the non-Christians.

The mantra of our current post-modern age is that "whatever you believe is true for you, and that's all that matters". The Christian worldview does not accept the post-modern view, and holds to an exclusive ideal of knowable truth, to the exclusion all contrary notions. Thus, no conflict of worldview exists for the Christian when arguing points of truth against non-Christians. However, given the mantra of the non-Christian relativists, shouldn't what Christians believe be allowed to be true for them.

The previous debate in this forum shows a complete disrespect for what Christians see as truth, with an arrogant "we're right, you're wrong" attitude being thrown back from the so-called tolerant non-Christians. In my mind this is an apparent contradiction between the world-view held by non-Christians and the way reality has played out this forum.

Surely, the post-modern, tolerant, society should recognise that Christian belief is just as valid as any other belief (based on your own worldview). Given that, then shouldn't Christians be afforded the same degree of protection from offence and vilification that everyoe else demands for their own set of beliefs and values?

Sadly, it seems that everyone else is allowed to cling to their own version of truth, while the Christians (who claim absolute truth, to the exclusion of others) are the only ones denied this privelege.

It is quite disgusting how Christias are denied the right to hold their own beliefs, free of vilification, slander and insult. Again and again, the non-Christian's conflict between their worldview and reality is shown. Tolerance for all - except Christians. It's open season on them.