Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Stone Table"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Well, that was the metaphor Lewis was going for in the book... [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:21, 27 June 2007 (EDT) | Well, that was the metaphor Lewis was going for in the book... [[User:DanH|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.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 22:22, 27 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:22, June 28, 2007
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)