Talk:Mere Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This page badly needs a criticism section that provides a modern rebuttal to the arguments presented in the book. (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism would be highly appropriate on this page. It is common among wikipedia articles to contain criticisms of the ideas/books/people described therein. -- StephanNaro (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


I think it would be useful if someone placed a short description of the reasonable alternatives to the "Trilemma." I don't know them myself, so I would be interested in learning, and I'm sure this is an area that many people are curious about.

That probably wouldn't be helpful in an article like this, which is meant to be a presentation of the ideas rather than a criticism of them. But if you're interested, the obvious rejoinder to Lewis' argument is that the picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels may not be an accurate one in every respect (or, perhaps, in any respect!) and that any claims to divinity attributed to him are spurious. Thus it is perfectly consistent to say that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but he was subsequently regarded as divine by his followers (although note that explicit claims that Jesus was divine are hard to find in the New Testament anyway) and this accounts for the picture presented by the Gospels, especially that of John. In fact this is what most biblical scholars believe anyway, and had Lewis researched modern biblical scholarship he would have seen the need to present a defence of his hidden premise that Jesus really did speak the words attributed to him in the Gospel of John.

On my userpage I extend the trilemma to a quintlemma (adding "nonexistent" and "misunderstood"). It's just a list, no formal criticism, although I believe it covers all possibilities ;) Arch O. La 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The trilemma is absurd. Besides assuming that the Bible is true (and therefore being a bit circular), and ignoring the ambiguity of the Bible, it inappropriately assigns the labels. A "lunatic" is more than merely a person who is mentally ill; many of the mentally ill are quite high-functioning (and it is incredibly insulting to the mentally ill to assert that mere mental illness disqulaifies one from the category of "great moral teacher). And not every false statement is a lie (even if it is known to be false by the speaker-- were the parables lies?), and not everyone who states a lie is a "liar".Heqwm 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It also needlessly throws the baby out with the bathwater. People have argued that Jesus is a good moral teacher on the merits of the morality he teaches (as displayed in the bible) so even if his claims to divinity are rejected, the point (I think) of arguing that he was a good moral teacher was to not ignore everything coming from Jesus just because one doesn't accept the claims to divinity. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The is some information on criticism of Mere Christianity, particularly of the Trilemma on the C. S. Lewis page and the Trilemma page.

source of title Mere Christianity[edit]

As I recall, in The Narnian, there was discussion of an earlier work titled Mere Christianity that was considered by Lewis and seems to have influenced his thinking. A discussion of this and a link to this would be very interesting.

The term was coined by Richard Baxter, a 17th century Puritian writer.


There's a review on Mere Christianity at the Official Time-Waster's Guide here. It actually contains a great deal of descriptive material, so may be helpful for this article. The Jade Knight 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Does the discussion of joy belong in a section titled "Arguments for a Moral Law"?Heqwm 04:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but it could probably do with some clarification or elaboration. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link[edit]

Just a heads-up, the book description link seems to be dead. (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I found it on*/ ;-) Will update, i only hope i'll get it right. Also, i noticed that another link, the first reference, is said to have moved to Should it be updated, even though the current link ( is much smaller and "tidier"? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: there still are some other cslclassics pages on this book, such as They even include the possibility to "browse inside". Should this be put in the article instead of the wayback version? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotional/commercial link repeatedly inserted into External Links[edit]

A blatantly promotional/commercial link (this) has been repeatedly inserted (here, here and here). That page is expressly designed to sell a book, and the language is thus heavily non-neutral. I think it pretty clear based on our external links policies that this link is totally inappropriate. (In addition, sometimes the article annotations about the link are decidedly non-neutral as well.) Rather than edit war (I already removed the link twice) I would like some more eyes on this to keep such spam off of the project. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

public domain[edit]

Has the text of this book passed into the public domain? -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The radio broadcasts were in the 1940s and the book was published in the 1950s, so its entry into the public domain is a ways away. Harej (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)