The Lewis Trilemma

The Lewis Trilemma is an infamous Christian apologetics argument brought forth by famed Christian apologist and writer of The Chronicles of Narnia series, CS Lewis. A basic formulaton of his Trilemma goes like this: “If Jesus was or wasn’t the Messiah, then there are three possibilities. Jesus was either a Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.”

The most fundamental problem with Lewis’ Trilemma is the fallacy of false equivocation, in formulating this fallacious argument Lewis has ignored other possibilities, for his Trilemma is based off of the presupposition that the Gospels are historically accurate as records of Jesus’ Ministry, when we know that not to be the case at all. For one, the Gospels read more like novels of the period than they do works of history. There are things present in the Gospel that no man could’ve have possibly witnessed, like the temptation of Christ by Satan on the Mount, not to mention numerous other problems with the assumption that the Gospels are historically accurate, such as Jesus being born in Bethlehem, when Bethlehem didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus’ supposed birth.

Clearly Lewis hadn’t thought this through, and if this is the best they’ve got, then they ain’t got shit. I challenge any Christian reader of this to come up with something better than the Lewis Trilemma, and to do it without resorting to fallacious means of argumentation. Is anyone up to it, or are you chickenshit? We’ll see…

The Million Dollar Question

This is an important one, and is directed towards religious moderates, specifically Christian moderates, who tend to not be Biblical literalists. This question concerns perhaps the most damning question one can think of towards Christian moderates, and needs no introduction. I think it fit to introduce the Million Dollar Question down below, ready? Here we go:


How does one determine whether or not a particular passage in the Bible is literally true, or only allegorically true?

This is a question that few theists dare answer, I have received responses that, are in effect, non-answers. Such a non-answer is usually along the lines of “What’s true in the Bible is true for different people,”. That’s fine and dandy, but I`m talking about truth, not interpretation, there’s a big difference.

The truth is what can be shown to be literally true, a la if evidence can be shown to support the veracity of a particular statement. An interpretation is one’s reaction to a statement, so while people do interpret the Bible differently, it still doesn’t answer my question, and doesn’t affect whether a particular passage in the Bible is literally true, or only allegorically true.

Any takers?