Da Vinci Code Decoded (Paperback)

Martin Lunn claims to be an historian, but he falls into the same traps as many of the "historians" on which Dan Brown relied for his own research, making wild leaps of logic and mortaring historical gaps with assumption and preconception.

For Brown, this was fine; he was writing fiction. But Lumm claims to be telling the "truth" - a truth no one can possibly know after two centuries of obfuscation. So what Lumm ACTUALLY does is recount Dan Brown's research without all of that confusing "plot" and none of those annoying "characters". If you want to know the contents of Martin Lunn's book, read Dan Brown and at least be entertained while you do it.

And then we have people who yell at his book for being "biased," yet clearly reveal their own.

<<Lunn might consider that there are far more Christians than atheists, suggesting that it is proponents of atheism who have been unable to offer 'any convincing proof'.>>

If that's your idea of proof, I guess in trials the burden should be on the suspect? So instead of making the prosecutor prove his case, the accused should stand before a jury and try to convince them he's NOT guilty?

That logic is in line with that of the Inquisition. Lets just burn everyone if they can't prove that something didn't happen!

Your "evidence" of some atheists turning Christian is hardly compelling. For every one that converted, there's one that researched it and didn't change his mind. Do you want a list of well-known atheist researchers who mainted their positions?

And to criticize atheists because there are LESS is truly pathetic. Christianity makes it clear that parents are to teach their children the ways of God. Children usually develop their religious belief system from their parents. So you're going to tell me that the large number of Christians means there are less atheists because there was no proof of Christianity being false? You're really sad, then. It has more to do with families raising their ilk to believe as they do. I'd really like to see the religious percentages if all parents simply said "research the religions and choose with your heart." I bet it'd be a lot different than it is now.

Stop criticizing a book on YOUR own bias. You are not objective and are thus not any more fit to critique this book than those you claim are "biased." Hypocrisy runs ramapant in the minds of some Christians.

I think that the Bible contains flaws and injustices, maybe even more than most religious books, but the real injustice is the people who read it and spend their life terrorizing others because of it. I'm not fond of the Bible, but I feel sorry for it, because a book alone does not create injustice. What creates injustice is those who read it and live their life based on it, and only it. Christianity is not inherently malicious.. it's those who distort it that create the malice. I am an agnostic who has not yet decided on the existence of any God, and perhaps never will.

But one thing that IS clear to me is that neither a Christian, nor someone who had deep hatred for Christianity (sorry, your average atheist does not harbor such hatred) has any objectivity in this matter.

This book, like any other, expresses a viewpoint. It expresses a viewpoint as Mr. "I'm not biased but this book is evil" does. I recommend everyone check to see how he rated the OTHER Da Vinci Code analyses. Bet you anything he rated the pro-Christian ones higher.