I don’t know what you think about the movie though. In my opinion, I thought it was a dud! And not because of its outrageous, exagerated claims, but because it was…well…dry. I’m hoping that the movie’s dry, boring nature will put an end to this so-called phenomenon.

Paul Magno, Melbourne

If we knowingly give money to enrich the promoters of pernicious tripe, then I’d have thought that we are ourselves helping to aid and abet such promoters. When powerful lay censorship movements against Hollywood existed from the 1930s to the 1960s, they didn’t ascribe evangelistic value to the movies they condemned. They called for boycotts, full stop. And if anyone doesn’t believe that boycotts were effective, read the history of Baby Doll (an almost ludicrously mild film by modern standards), which was comprehensively boycotted on sexual grounds in the 1950s, when it came out. The boycott against it hurt the makers of it.

Ultimately I reckon that if we’re not in the business of hurting present-day Hollywood, we might as well submit to its evils.

R J Stove. Melbourne

On the several occasions where I did suggest that we might see the film, it was always with the proviso that we bring along a non-believing friend who may have already wanted to go see it, and then after the film, talk to him or her about the real Jesus, and the truth of the Biblical version of events. Thus my aim in mind was evangelistic and/or apologetic. Otherwise you are quite right. We do not need to expereice something firsthand before we can comment on it, or warn against it.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

First, I’m afraid I can’t see the sense of us believers going to see the film at all. We don’t need to taste cyanide ourselves in order to know that it’s bad for us, do we? Don’t need to walk out ourselves and sit in the middle of the road in order to know that oncoming traffic can kill us, do we? Surely the whole notion of us going to see the film is just one more example of the “personal-experience-as-authority” disease which is helping to kill Christendom.

Secondly, if only our vilification laws could be used to defend us, rather than to defend (as they are being used to defend) our enemies, could we have any serious moral objection to their existence? I know I couldn’t. I want to make it illegal for Christ to be attacked in public. I want the Andres Serranos and the smearers-of-the-Virgin-Mary-with-dung to do prison time.

R J Stove, Melbourne

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Regarding your question as to why Christians have not employed the Victorian vilification laws against the DVC.

My guess would be that the last thing Christians want to do is to bring legitimacy to these laws by using them to pursue their own vilification claims.

The sooner these laws are ammended / overturned the better, and not just for the sake of the Christians.

Steve Bergen, Melbourne

Danii Rizzo, Melbourne

(1) Why does an author use some details from a major world religion (Christianity) and then spin off some fantastic imaginery picture that has little resemblance to that factual religion? I guess it’s poetic licence, but it helps to confuse those who are not discerning.

(2) How can we use this literary invention to get to the facts about Christ and the heart of why He died?

I note that in the “Decoding the code” that you have had published in ON LINE Opinion, it has given rise to some antagonism and distortion of the Scriptures by secularists. That’s to be expected and it does give opportunity for those who want to enter the apologetic “lions’ den.” However, with the reduced (nearly zero) emphasis on biblical theology in churches up my way, I think that apologetic engagement in the secular “lions’ den” will be the ministry of only a few.

I commend you for your Christ-honouring ministry of addressing contemporary issues from a biblical perspective. Cultural apologetics in this declining Australian culture will continue to face challenges of this nature.

Spencer Gear, Bundaberg, Qld.

The ‘code’, whether book or movie, ridicules the fundamentals of Christianity particularly that Jesus Christ was true God and true man, who preached a message of love built on truth.

He freely suffered a humiliating death to bring His message to fulfillment for the benefit of all humanity. His followers down the centuries have been prepared to also freely suffer humiliating deaths because they were unwilling to to reject Jesus’ message of truth and love.

While anyone may not accept Jesus’ message, the ‘code’ attacks that message in a manner that has been harshly dealt with under the Victorian law in another case.

Is this Victorian law not to be used when the Christian message is attacked on a broad scale?

Pat Healy, Hamilton, Vic.