Hmmm…so the beast from Revelation, the Dragon that fell from the sky can now be tamed? We can now feel compassion for the “dragon”, and alas, the dragon can be our friend? It seems fitting, for in our post-modern world we have already accepted the kind, romantic vampire and the benevolent witch. This is exactly what we need. Another movie that blurs classical symbols in order to confuse our kids in discerning spiritual truths.

For parents out there I would recommend a wonderful book by Catholic author Michael O’Brien called “A Landscape with Dragons: The Battle for Your Child’s Mind.” It’s a great exposition on the “reversal of symbolism” in children’s fantasy literature, and how this confusion invades the child’s imagination, undermining their ability to recognize truth.

Oh come ON, R.J.!  By that logic all snakes would have to be evil, since there’s a bad one in Genesis.

What about the dragon in C.S. Lewis’ “Voyage of the Dawn Treader”?  Or the “rehabilitated” elves in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth?  Elves used to be tied in directly with witchcraft and evil fairies, you know.

Fantasy is fantasy.  Well-adjusted people, children included, know that magic isn’t real, dragons aren’t real (the one in Revelation is symbolic of Satan—not a REAL dragon), and witches are actually pathetic hippies.

Perhaps you should read some St. Basil the Great, lecture xxii or xxiii, I believe, where he advises students on the proper way to read Greek literature.  He doesn’t say to avoid paganistic influences altogether—rather, he tells them to read it with discernment, keeping what’s good and throwing out what’s obviously bad.

Was it St. Theresa of Avila who prayed to be delivered from “dour-faced saints”?  Let’s try not to be those.

I have to agree with the comment posted by R. J. Del Valle

I saw the following posted in the review of this movie on the Big Hollywood site in comments section by Brandi Martinez which I thought summed it up well (I would link if I could):

“Teaching children that something historically, universally understood to be clearly dangerous evil turns out to be glorious fun if they will only give ‘exploring their options in life’ a try, or ‘seeing things in a different way than your parents and your community’ will most likely lead in real world terms to latchkey children ‘seeking’ such ‘adventures’ in places and among those whom Mom & Dad would be terrified to let their children near.
45 years of observing cultural decline, fueled in large measure by the perennial willingness of ‘conservative’ parents to seek any excuse to excuse entertainments which clearly show roots poisonous to nurturing strong growth and true in our young, has only increased daily my wonder at ‘conservative’ lip service given to ‘biblical values’ even as they shove Barbie and Disney filth at their children.

How any ‘conservative’ could possibly not loudly denounce, let alone promote, any story which encourages children to
A) seek adventure by
B) ignoring elder
C) customs or rules or boundaries, and that
D) ‘...chang(ing) village life forever…’ is always good.

Any who do not clearly see the active malice of Hollywood producers and writers of such entertainments as the above have toward normal, everyday, straight, married, families with children are blinding themselves to the poison they pour into the minds and hearts of their own children.

The question of ‘why’ any loving father or mother would so blind themselves I leave for each of you to contemplate.”

R.J.: Chill out. Not every dragon is Satan.

R. J. Del Valle: Should we condemn The Wizard of Oz because it has a benevolent witch? (The 1995 Vatican film list didn’t.)

I am all over the moral problems of the Twilight Saga’s romantic vampires, as my readers well know. But a one-size-fits-all interpretation of imaginative conventions misses the freedom that storytellers have to adapt such conventions in different ways.

More soon.

Hello Steven. Thanks for your response.

I didn’t mention anything about condemnation. Let’s slow down a bit. I’m pointing out a “confusion of symbolism”, which should be treated with discernment. The freedom to tell stories can flourish perfectly fine without a revision or misinterpretation of symbols.

I think it helps us all to identify this confusion of truths in symbols and images, at the same time praise the redeeming qualities of a story. I did not see that in your article, but that is not to say that it wasn’t a great article, which it was.

Should we condemn the good witch in the wizard of oz? Not necessarily. Should we identify certain misappropriated symbols in modern fantasy? Absolutely.

More for R. J. Del Valle:
 
The book of Revelation has an evil dragon. But in the Old Testament we read “Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps” (Psa 148:7 KJV) and “The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls” (Isa 43:20 KJV). Revelation calls the dragon “that ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9), but Jesus uses the same word “serpent” positively when he tells us “Be wise as serpents” (Matt 10:16)> Obviously Jesus does not mean “Be like the dragon in Revelation or the ancient serpent in the Garden of Eden.”
 
In other words, the same animal can be a symbol or figure of evil in one context and of good in another. 1 Peter 5:8 compares the devil to a lion, but Rev 5:5 uses the lion as a symbol for God. Likewise, wolves are often icons of evil in the Bible (e.g., Matt 7:15, 10:16, John 10:12, etc.)—but not always (Isa 11:6, 65:25).
 
In Christian art and tradition, as in the Bible, dragons and serpents are often symbols of evil, but they’ve also been used in positive ways, for example in connection with King Arthur Pendragon (“Dragon’s Head”) and in European heraldry. There are also other cultural traditions to consider. I don’t know about you (or Michael O’Brien), but I’m not prepared to say that the benevolent dragons of Chinese tradition, among others, are a demonic deception.
 
I appreciate much about O’Brien’s book, but like everyone (including me) he is not always right. (I’ve pointed out in the past how his critique of C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is based on a misunderstanding.)
 
I’m sympathetic to the general thrust of O’Brien’s argument on the inversion of symbols, and have often pointed out problematic cases of such inversions, such as the subversive reinterpretation of the Wicked Witch of the West as a sympathetic character. However, as noted above, that is not to say that you can never have a good witch (as in The Wizard of Oz)—or a good dragon. That is a confusion.
 
If you read my review, you’ll have noticed something significant about the dragons in this movie: They are animals—several species of animals, in fact—clever, like a dog or a horse in many a cartoon or TV show, but not talking beasts, not persons, like the dragon in Revelation. Spoiler: At the end of the movie, they’re the Vikings’ pets. Not their “friends,” their pets. 
 
How to Train Your Dragon is not a post-modern deconstruction of good and evil. In the end there is still good and evil—and good has triumphed over evil. A malevolent enemy has been destroyed, and the Vikings have learned that animals they once tried to kill can be domesticated, just as early humans domesticated the wolves they once fought. The Big Bad Wolf is rightly a fixture of fairy tales, but it would be wrong to lay down a law that our children’s souls are at stake if a story ever features a good wolf—or a good lion, or a good dragon.

Thanks for this review! I’d been planning on passing on this until it was out on DVD (the TV commercials made it look more “Shrek” than “Meatballs”) but knowing that Chris Sanders (who I always get confused with Chris Wedge for some reason) is involved, now maybe I’ll get out to see this with the kids.

To R. J. Del Valle: FWIW, the combox appears to be acting funny; I wrote and posted both of my posts before seeing your follow-up. Thanks, I appreciate your kind words about my piece and your wish to slow down and proceed thoughtfully. 
 
As I said, I am sympathetic to the way that an inversion of traditional symbols can be used to subvert traditional moral truths. However, I think we need to be cautious about language like “misappropriated symbols,” which seems to be imply that symbols have a set, “native” meaning, and anything that departs from that is somehow suspect.
 
I don’t think that’s the case. The dragon is not a natively evil symbol that some cultures or stories misappropriate as a symbol of good. It is an imaginative archetype that can be used with equal legitimacy in either negative or positive ways.
 
On the one hand, humans (probably all mammals) have an instinctive and wholesome aversion toward reptiles (which may be poisonous or otherwise dangerous) that makes it natural for us to imagine dragons (like dinosaurs) as hostile and thus evil. OTOH, we also have an instinctive and wholesome curiosity about things that frighten us, and we instinctively recognize that such fears may not be rational or accurate. We should not canonize our emotional aversion toward reptiles any more than we canonize a child’s aversion to broccoli or to a doddering but kindly old aunt. I’m not sure that O’Brien doesn’t make this mistake (in regard to reptiles/dragons, not broccoli or kindly old aunts).

“[The Dragon] is an imaginative archetype that can be used with equal legitimacy in either negative or positive ways.”

I definitely agree with this. Implicit with most dragon archetypes, too, is an ancient sense of civilization (the whole “dragon in his study with a big stack of books and reading glasses affixed to his nose” cliche), Dragon civilization always predating any of humanity’s vulgar attempts at civilization. So if I’ll have any objections to “How to Train Your Dragon” it’ll probably be more around the reducing of the dragon archetype down to the level of “My Little Pony” (the pink ones with blue hair and stars on their hindquarters can fly!)—though to be fair, I haven’t seen the movie yet.

@Josh - Thank you. That was a great post! Sadly, people tend to act with indifference regarding the influence of a lot of confusing post-modern fantasy literature.

@Andrew - Wasn’t the dragon in Dawn Treader a child? Didn’t that scaly embodiment symbolized ugly sin, which only Aslan could tear apart with great suffering to the child? Doesn’t sound so jovial. You see, magic IS real, elves ARE real, and the same with dragons. If you knew anything about Faerie, you’d understand that. Plus, Tolkien knew a lot about using the correct symbolism in his literature and in his view, as I discern from his writings, would be that the link between elves and evil fairies/witches is quite erroneous. I’ve read St. Basil and St. Teresa and I don’t recollect anything they’ve said to prove your point.

@Roger - you’ve proven my point.

@Steven - great response once again, and no problem! I’m learning a lot. Not to be a pain, but I don’t quite get your first paragraph or your exact exegesis of the examples you game me. I don’t really see any indication that these parts of scriptures were expressing an idea of a benevolent dragon. For instance, in Psalm 148, “dragons” could symbolize “big, scary creatures living in the deeps (waters).” And in Matthew, saying that Jesus used the word “serpents” positively is quite an interpretation. He called them “shrewd” (NAB). Okay….I would argue that Lucifer is also shrewd or “wise” like you say. But he’s also 100% evil, since he’s cut off from God. So I don’t see how these examples show dragons and serpents as symbols of good. And as for 1 Peter 5:8? A simile comparing the devil as something that prowls like a lion is saying that lions are evil? Eh…that’s a bit slippery.

I understand your argument regarding Christian depictions in art, but Pendragon is a quite fitting name for Uther and Arthur. The former slept with the wife of an enemy to conceive his son. The latter slept (whether willingly or unwillingly) with his sister to conceive Mordred (one of many legends of course). Arthur and Uther are not the greatest examples of positivity and perfection. Oh, but what about their actions? Morally gray at best. So I’m still not quite convinced.

O’brien may not be right about “That Hideous Strength” but I believe he’s right on the money with other things, including the confusion of traditional symbols in modern fantasy literature.

I understand your position on how it’s okay to have good dragons, witches and wolves because the overall story is really about good versus evil, and what have you. The problem is that I also believe that this confusion of symbols would one day have “good” demons battling “evil” angels, or has that story been done already? You say in your posting “a malevolent enemy” has been destroyed. Well, that’s a bit ambiguous, ‘cause that malevolent enemy could be “God” in a sense, as he is in Pullman’s trilogy. Do you think is correct to have “God” as an evil antagonist and a little girl as the heroic protagonist as long as it’s all about “good versus evil?”

You say symbols do not carry a “native” meaning. So then all symbols are relative to all things? Is there not an absolute and objective truth for at least one symbol? But I could go on and on. I think your strongest argument was in fact how they dragons are more like animals in the movie, so I can see a separation there from the traditional dragon to a more reptilian creature. But anyway, keep up the good work. Again, since you came on board with NC Register, I have truly loved your posts. Look forward to the next one.

God bless,

R.J.

Thanks again, R.J., I’m gratified and humbled.
 
I absolutely agree about the dragons in Psalm 148 being big and scary! My point is that the psalmist calls on them (along with other created things like sun and moon, etc.) to praise God, placing them within the context of God’s good plan for creation, and not in the realm of demonic rebellion, where we would not find the psalmist issuing this sort of invocation.
 
Likewise in St. Matthew, while we might or might not want to describe Satan as “shrewd,” I don’t think it is tenable to construe the sense of Jesus’ saying as “Be shrewd like Satan” or “Be shrewd like an evil thing.” The sense is not “serpents evil, doves good,” but “serpents shrewd, doves harmless.” (If you don’t like my lion example, what do you think of my wolf examples? :) )
 
King Arthur is like King David: He gets credit for championing and aspiring to a high and holy ideal, even though he falls tragically short. Like David, he is decisive and masterful in public life, but weak and prone to lapses in his private life. The red dragon as Arthur’s symbol represents all that he aspired to achieve, not the symbol of his failures. There was no perceived tension between the Christian ideals he aspired to and his dragon symbol.
 
Like I said, I appreciate much of O’Brien’s argument. I think this sort of argument works where one can connect an unexpected use of symbols to actual moral or spiritual subversion in the story itself—and Pullman would be an excellent case in point where I would agree 100 percent with O’Brien. (BTW, my gestures toward ambiguity are a fig leaf to critical scruples about not giving everything away, but suffice to say from my comments about “the draconian hierarchy” one might reasonably surmise some sort of arch-dragon or super-dragon who is an unreconstructed predator and must simply be destroyed.) :-)
 
Do symbols ever have absolute and objective truth? There are divinely appointed symbols that have fixed meaning. We can’t revise the meaning of eucharistic bread and wine, or turn natural relationships like marriage or fatherhood and sonship into something other than icons of Trinitarian love. (Of course, we can explore how human failings parody and pervert divinely intended meanings.) Good demons battling evil angels would seem to be a pretty good case in point of going against meaning fixed by God (though I do have an idea for a pretty cool and deeply Catholic story about angels and demons in which the audience discovers which is which only at the end).
 
When it comes to human symbolism, I guess some symbols are closer to the heart of human nature than others, and more likely to have stable meaning. Still, polyvalence jumps out at me everywhere I look. Water is a pretty enduring symbol for life, but it can also be a symbol for death (and in baptism it’s both). Fire, wind, the sun, earth, a tree, an eye, a bowl or cup, a door or window—give me a symbol, I’ll give you the good and the bad.

The question shouldn’t be can we express a “good and bad” of a certain symbol, but “should we” express the good and bad of a symbol. Should we express a vampire as a benevolent creature?

The symbol of a black heart. How do we spin that to be a good thing? And not the symbol of a normal heart. That’s a separate symbol.

:-)

I saw an ad, and the girl looked anorexic.
Not a good image for young girls.

I saw this last night. I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said in your review Steven. (Spoiler alert!) I think my favourite scene was the unsympathetic father’s moment of heroism!

On an unrelated note, do you think you will be able to do a review of “Passing Strange?” Saw it last week on my computer (hasn’t been released in Australia yet) and thought it was awesome!

Not to derail the discussion, but having read several versions of the Arthurian tales. I think the figure of King Arthur has more parallels with Solomon than King David (think of Arthur’s conception and his role as a wise king) and quite feasibly may have developed through the syncretism of biblical stories and Welsh Celtic legends.

R.J.: It might seem that specifying a “black heart” smuggles a moral valence into the symbol, but actually color symbolism is as polyvalent as any other kind. Observe how self-evidently context changes everything if I say “Faust had a black heart, and proud” or “Kunta Kinte had a black heart, and proud.” :-) No spin necessary. Black ≠ evil.
 
The vampire qua vampire, as traditionally defined, is essentially ordered toward an act (drinking human blood, subsisting on life drawn from others) so morally fraught that it is difficult if not impossible to imagine vampiric nature as anything other than evil. The archetypal vampire must therefore be evil, and in fact (pomo inversions aside of course) there is no tradition of “good” vampire-like creatures in any established mythic or folklore tradition with which I am aware.
 
In the same way, if the dragon qua dragon were essentially ordered toward such acts as devouring maidens or flame-broiling knights in shining armor, it would be difficult if not impossible to imagine draconine nature as anything other than evil. But they aren’t. The only essential characteristic of a dragon is to be a preternaturally large sort of serpentine or saurian creature. Everything else—legs or number of legs, wings, breathing fire, guarding treasure, intelligence, speech—is variable. Whether dragons are good, evil or merely animal depends entirely on the characteristics ascribed to them. Which is why good dragons, unlike good vampires, do crop up in mythic and folklore traditions outside of pomo inversions.
 
P.S. Edward, beanpole-like females are a besetting issue in animation generally, alas. Lilo & Stitch was a rare exception. Ben, reviewing Passing Strange is definitely on my agenda, but no promises on timeframe!

Barbara, as an Arthurian enthusiast myself, I stand by my Arthur / David analogy. :-)
 
Off the top of my head, a few points of contact between (some versions of) Arthur and the biblical David—but not Solomon: (b) raised in comparatively humble/obscure circumstances; (b) celebrated for decisive youthful exploit (involving sword!) catapulting boy to fame; (c) sibling rivalry with elder brother figure(s), manifested during decisive youthful exploit; (d) championed by visionary mentor/guide (Merlin/Samuel); (e) celebrated warrior-king; (f) killed giant (!); (g) commander of celebrated company of warriors (who at times opposed the king); (h) kingdom-builder; (i) founded capital city; (j) succeeded capricious, inadequate king / bad times; (k) ushered in idealized age of greatest subsequent nostalgia; (l) entangled in adulterous intrigue; (m) fathered child out of wedlock; (n) betrayed/opposed by son born of woman with whom king had adulterous liaison, leading to decades of tragic conflict; (o) unable to respond effectively to personal/domestic crises.
 
Conversely, I can think of a few ways in which Arthur resembles Solomon more than David (e.g., presiding over decline and fall of great kingdom), but nothing like the Arthur/David resonances enumerated above.

More Arthur/David parallels keep occurring to me! :-)
 
(p) That decisive youthful exploit where the then-obscure future king is catapulted into fame and experiences sibling rivalry with his elder brother figure(s)? Both future kings are on the scene in a capacity of service to their elder brothers, who are full participants in a contest of arms in which the youthful future king is not meant to be a participant. (q) Both kings lose their elderly visionary mentor/guide while in their prime. (r) Both are not only warriors and kingdom-builders, but holy warriors who conquer heathen armies in God’s name—and (s) both instigate a quest to recover a holy vessel (the ark of the covenant, the holy grail), a quest that ends badly for some who are unworthy. (t) Both attempt to escape the consequences of adultery by attempted murder (in some versions, Arthur tries Herod-like to kill the infant Mordred, but fails).

Here’s more David/Arthur comparisons - glad to see someone else has thought this out!
(a) Both had a mighty sword - Excalibur/Sword of Goliath; (b) Both had nephews as some of their mightiest warriors, who at times opposed them - Arthur w/Gawain, et al, David w/Joab et al; and my favorite… (c) Arthur had LANCElot… David had… Adino… or more literally… “The SPEAR.”

And I’d also add to your Biblical symbols, Steven, that of the serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness… wait… a serpent as a symbol of CHRIST?? Hey, Jesus said it, not me…

but, the BLOOD OF JESUS washes the saints, and all, and even evil ..

I know this doesn’t have anything to do with How To Train Your Dragon, but I would like to say something about the good vampire thing. First, let me clear this up: I absolutely HATE the Twilight Saga. However, I am not completely opposed to the depiction of good vampires.  There is an anime (Japanese animation) called “Trinity Blood.” The premise is that most of the world has been taken over by evil, crazy vampires, and the only thing that stands between these blood-sucking hoards and the few humans left is the Vatican. The only people who can defeat the vampires are priests (or exorcists) and nuns. However, the twist is that Abel, the main character and a priest, has been turned into a vampire. However, he fights against his dark side, and he serves the Vatican and God by protecting the innocent.
(Don’t get me wrong though, Trinity Blood is in no way a perfect series. The list of doctrinal inconsistencies goes on and on.)
As I understand it, a lot of vampires are just normal people who have been transformed into blood-craving creatures because they have been bitten by another vampire. Obviously, drinking human blood is evil, but if this craving is depicted as a symbol of man’s fallen nature, a symbol of original sin, then I cannot complain. For a vampire, drinking blood is a temptation, but like with any temptation, as long as it is resisted there is no sin. Therefore, I believe that vampires do not necessarily have to be depicted as evil, as long as they resist the temptation to drink human blood. 
When a vampire does drinks human blood, we can see clearly the grotesque and despicable side of sin and the horrifying consequences of it. On the other hand, when a vampire resists the temptation we see how satisfying and glorious a victory over sin can be.

R. J.

I know this is futile of me to say this since you are bound to ignore me or insult me, but you have a very narrow minded view on life and other creatures.

The bible was written by MAN, not by god….And one thing that man does is stereotype things.

Dragons are NOT evil…they are like any other creature; they want to survive, and like us, they can be good or bad, depending on the individual, but to label the ENTIRE race as bad is what causes trouble…History has shown quite clearly what results that acheived with humans and their different cultures alone.

To lable ALL of them as bad due to some singular viewed stories is as foolish as people like me to lable all catholics as pedophiles just because of some being child molestors.

Are all catholics pedophiles? no, they arent…

Are all muslims terrorists? no…most are frightened of us, thats why they attack.

Are all humans evil? no.

Are all dragons evil? no!

So dont go stereotyping dragons.

I know some catholics who love dragons like I do, and they told me “Why would god create a creature like dragons, give them all that amazing powers and then declare them ‘evil’ and want to kill them? God doesnt hate anything…Thats a human failing..Its MAN who hates and stereotypes things, not god…But sadly, man wrote the bible to suit his needs and he wanted to blame something for problems”

Didnt your bible say “Judge not lest Ye be judged?”

Please stop stereotyping dragons…They are actually amazing creatures that could use some compassion and love.

@Dragon Lover – </p)

I think there is a big difference between creatures and “symbols” and because it appears that you are ignorant to this fact makes my response futile in nature. There are a lot of wrong things in your argument; it’s very honest, yet amateur and naïve.

Because the Bible was written by Man does not make it sloppy, and it does not fill it with a slew of stereotypes. Now “your” assertion is quite sloppy and your logic is seriously flawed.

“Dragons are NOT evil.” That’s an absolute truth statement, and because dragons have been shown to be evil in the past, then your statement is false. You say they “want to survive.” So you’ve met one? If you have, it would explain a lot of things.

The symbol of the dragon is in question in this argument, and to call some of the stories we’ve discussed “singular” shows your lack of comprehension of them.

Then you present an inconsistent logical argument that’s far fetched: Are all Catholics pedophiles? No, so all dragons are not evil. Great job there.

You ask why would God create a creature like dragons and then declare them evil? Did you just ask that? When exactly did you start muddling primary and secondary belief? God has made many creatures that are presently evil. Can you name some of them?

Does my bible say,” Judge not lest ye be judged?” It always bugs me when people take this out of context. This is clearly not a prohibition against judging others, for it would obviously go against Matthew 7:5-6.

Two words for you, Dragon Lover:  “Full Communion.”

@Steven:

Thanks for your responses. What you explained about the black heart was a bit subjective, muddy at best. I can understand your honesty by saying “there’s no spin necessary.” But humor me. Can you name me an honest-to-God, good depiction of a black heart symbol? You write “Black does not equal Evil.” So then I am assuming by the law of contradiction that Black actually equals good then, because black cannot be evil and good at the same time. If that was the case, abortion can be evil and good at the same time.

Regarding Arthur, your comparisons of Arthur to David are exemplary. But I think that’s a bit going off from the main argument. Just because Arthur did all these wonderful things doesn’t make the appropriation of a dragon symbol correct. I’m sure there were confused authors in olden times as there are now in our modern day.

R.J., I thought I already gave you an example of “black heart” used in a positive sense, did you not follow my sample lines? “Black” per se is neither good nor evil morally; ontologically it is good inasmuch as it belongs to the created order that God has pronounced “very good.” “Black” can be used symbolically or imaginatively with negative connotations or with good ones, as I think I’ve already shown. So can wolves, as my earlier biblical examples illustrate. So, I submit, can dragons. Abortion, unlike black, wolves and dragons, is an objective moral evil, so not a helpful point of reference. Not sure what you’re going after there, or how to be much clearer than I’ve been.

I expect to have several other points thrown at me in relevance to the comment I’m about to make. Although this may have flaws, this is my two cents.

RJ: Oh. Right. So you’re saying that (assuming the majority of all dragons are intelligent) dragons have been evil in the beginning, they’ll be evil forever? If that were TRUE, then look back at Genesis. Adam and Eve, and how they were tricked by the devil. They sinned once, and from that EVERYONE down the line is born a sinner. Then look at today. Sure, people screw up sometimes, but not everyone is made of 99.9% sin. If your view on this is correct, then that’d mean that anything human would be tainted by sin. Untrue! Remember how God came down to Earth to wash away our sins? Jesus was human, wasn’t he? So isn’t he automatically evil? If that was actually true then I’m a fourteen-foot tall butterfly-winged platypus with twenty arms. I know you’re going to say something among the lines of ‘but he’s Jesus, of course he isn’t a sinner’. And that’s correct, yet it completely goes against your view on this. If it didn’t, then Jesus WOULD be a sinner by default looking back at the screw-up in Genesis, with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Thankyou RJ for the comment about how to train a dragon I felt something in my spirit about it but I had no idea what was wrong but it felt wrong but with my human Eyes I could not understand, That is Why the lord tells us not to rely on our own understanding. I came to find what I needed to see about this movie and you pointed it out clearly thankyou very much for posting the deception in the movie, May god bless you God Bless Jillian

This has been 3 years but I feel I still need to say something.

RJ, you are free to believe in what you wish, but to stereotype every single dragon based on a book is narrow minded and dangerous; after all, John, who wrote Revelations was talking symbolically about the Roman empire. By calling them a 7 headed dragon, he was referring to the 7 hills or states or something, the same with 10 horns, which meant the power the people in charge had, as with the crowns.

By saying ‘devil’ he was stating that the roman empire was the ‘enemy’

However if he wrote that the Romans were evil and nasty, he’d be hunted down and killed. This is why he said ‘dragon’, he used it as a metaphor. He never intended to insult real dragons.

Also, no, god did NOT create evil creatures. Evil is a individual choice or consequence of actions. Why create ‘evil’ creatures and say ‘ok, you’re evil. I look forward to killing you later on’...sorry, but that doesn’t work with me.

I am not a Catholic as I don’t trust them. I have been heartbroken many times by their actions, and I am particularly hurt by the dragon slayer stories, but I have absolutely no ill feelings towards Jesus; he did nothing wrong to me, so why should I blame him? Even though people use his name to cause bad things. The same goes with dragons; they are not your enemy. My ancestors, the Celtics loved and respected dragons, who were their friends and guardians. Yes, there are bad dragons, but that’s individual choice, not genetic.

Sadly, mistranslation ruined it.

If you haven’t seen it, see this film, you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Take care now.