@shortstories It bothers me that this happens to be "the year of the dragon."
I don't really agree with theologians who use astronomy and astrological signs as, well, "signs," but this does rub me the wrong way, considering that the Cathedral sure seems to love demonic attunement.
To be fair, we're told that the stars were created "for signs, seasons, days, and years." What do you think? Any thoughts about the Year of the Dragon?
@RoninGrey @shortstories - Re: OP
I like dragons. I don't see them as Satanic. I suspect they've been painted as Satanic by the church, because they represent an older ethos, and one that is more grounded in reality.
Western Dragons seem to represent values that are opposed by the church in classic 'master-morality vs slave-morality' fashion.
I would never worship Satan though, so the fact that the two are often associated can be baffling, if a person is only seeing in dichotomies. 🫡🍻
@YoMomz @RoninGrey @Stahesh @UncleIroh
Dragons are dinosaurs
Dinosaurs are not real they were invented in the 1800s
So dragons are not real
The fact that they fact checked it shows that they are trying to hide the truth
The lack of soft tissue in most cases proves they do not know what alleged bone connected to what alleged bone and were just making stuff up
If any soft tissue is later found it does not refute they were making stuff up before then
@YoMomz @RoninGrey @Stahesh @UncleIroh
Groups that label themselves as both Christian and Young Earth Creationists frequently claim that dragons are real & that they co existed with humans & that small dinosaurs about the size of a football or a sheep were on Noah's ark
That dragon legends were really about dinosaurs
And Ken Ham instead of calling dragons "satanic" calls them "missionary lizards"
Calling Satan a serpent or dragon is not the same as calling all serpents Satan