The Fall of Man

The Fall of Man as seen by Thomas Paine

“The Christian Mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the Garden of Eden, in the shape of a snake or a serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no way surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of this tête-à-tête is that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.

After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the Church Mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit: or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain), or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women and doing more mischief.

But instead of this they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole—the secret of which is that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?

Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none of the combatants could be either killed or wounded—put Satan into the pit—let him out again—gave him a triumph over the whole creation—damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, these Christian Mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and Man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an apple. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Authors emphasis 

Advertisements

About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

5 Responses to The Fall of Man

  1. Katoikei says:

    Was it really an ‘apple’ ?

    • the word of me says:

      Naah, probably a fig, but much of Christianity relates to the red fruit.

      • Katoikei says:

        You’re moving too fast.

        From your opening quote:

        ‘he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind’

        I say:
        Was it really an ‘apple’?

        You say:
        Naah, probably a fig, but much of Christianity relates to the red fruit.

        > It’s pretty clear to the reasonable mind that something far worse than ingesting and apple/fig/red fruit ‘damns all mankind’ What sort of crime would warrant that all mankind is damned?

      • the word of me says:

        Hello Eric/Katoikei/Blue Django, busy today are you?

        ‘he persuades her to eat an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind’

        That opening there is from Thomas Paine of course, and he is just commenting on Paul’s assertion that because of the apple incident that all of mankind from there on in is paying for Adan and Eve’s mistake. All of that is inconsequential of course because the whole story is myth…Adam and Eve never happened

        Thomas Paine probably was a Deist, therefore not a believer in a personal God. He understood that Christianity as it was constituted then (and now) was/is a con.

        You write:
        “> It’s pretty clear to the reasonable mind that something far worse than ingesting and apple/fig/red fruit ‘damns all mankind’ What sort of crime would warrant that all mankind is damned?”

        Short answer: nothing, but who knows the mind of Christian apologists…certainly not me. 🙂

  2. Blue Django says:

    You say: ‘All of that is inconsequential….’ and ‘Short answer: nothing, ….’
    > So, ‘Was it really an ‘apple’?’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: