It is helpful that in so few words, the
modus operandi is so clearly laid out.
QUOTE
Some of the world's most brilliant scientists believe in/worship a God that the ancient evidence proves was originally considered a dragon deity. And I think these people are far less idotic or childish as you.
I can claim they agree with me = "some of the world's most brilliant"
Someone disagrees with me = "idiotic or childish"
And then there is "a God that the ancient evidence proves was originally considered a dragon deity."
The modern people do not worship a dragon, period. What the evidence shows is that some Hebrews borrowed religious ideas from some of their neighbors. Some of those religious ideas featured gods with animal qualities, and some of the animals involved were cold-blooded and big.
Fascinating as it is to ponder that people borrow ideas from one another, once an idea is borrowed, then it becomes the borrower's idea, too. And like most borrowers, Hebrews combined ideas, their own as well as others'. to create a new idea, which combination is then and thereafter their idea.
So, the actual God worshipped by modern people is like Kevin Bacon in the "six degrees of separation" game. There is a "connection" between the God of Abraham and every other god that has ever been anywhere.
But just as Kevin Bacon is not, and never was, Lillian Gish, the God of Abraham is not a dragon, and never was, either.
On another matter, DC, you have cited a work in support of your argument, namely, a book that is sold in two London museums, has been translated into other languages, has two illustrations related to dragons, and concerns the Roman Army.
The standards for scholarly citation of a published work are straightforward: provide sufficient inormation so that anyone can locate the book; minimally, the author's name or pseudonym, and the title of the book. If you are unable or unwilling to provide that much, then you ought not to have mentioned the work.
Given that you have not backed up your claim that the work exists, people are entitled to draw whatever conclusion they wish about your scholarship and about whether or not you are telling the truth that such a work exists.
Self-serving statements that you are not lying are no substitutes for missing citations in standard and usual form. No privacy question arises; your claim is that this is an already
published work.
Quetzal (quetzalli) is one of a member of a family of birds. Quetzalcoatl was undoubtedly serpentine (no legs, no wings) but was alternatively depicted as a man with a feathered headdress. There is some speculation the appellation is a veneration of a powerful ruler from early Aztec history ( Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl) and was/is it not common of tribal leaders to pick an animal motif with which to personify, adding the 'power' of the animal to their attributes and so enhancing their fitness to rule? Snakes are common in that locale if I'm not mistaken?
That's kind of ridiculous considering DC claims to have enough evidence to support his theory in that book. If there really was that much evidence, he wouldn't want it to be hidden and hard to find. So, we can assume that this book isn't as reliable as he says, I guess. Until I read it, I can't say I believe what he says.
