Talk:The Stone Table

I'm confused about this reversion. DanH 22:14, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

As am I. JoshuaZ 22:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

The reversion was simple. It was making a comparison of a magical table in a fictional book to be similar to Jesus' death and resurrection. It trivializes the Gospel account, or it slaps Christians across the face. Karajou 22:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, that was the metaphor Lewis was going for in the book... DanH 22:21, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. It's an allegory, to introduce children to hte principle of divine sacrifice & love. I loved that book as a kid, and studied Lewis & Tolkein extensively. They're great books that teach Christian morals. Not trivializations. Lewis was a deeply Christian man (as was Tolkein) and Lewis tried to show it in his writing. Karajou, what he did was good.-Phoenix 22:22, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Then should such an edit have been properly explained in the first place? I'm for the explanation, but not the trivialization of it. Karajou 22:24, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd do it but I'm currently playing Nintendo DS :-). Get back to you in a bit.-Phoenix 22:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

The book was written as an allegory of Christianity for children, to give children a familiarity with the general story as a form of pre-evangelism. DanH 22:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I've expanded it a bit. Is this ok? JoshuaZ 22:33, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is, and appreciated as well. Karajou 22:34, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't have time to write anything this second, but just an idea I had. It might be good to quickly mention the fact that Narnia isn't a strict allegory. Although, this is one of the clearest allegorical spots in the story. Just a thought Mskreuz 09:07, 28 June 2007 (EDT)