The argument of Noyes regarding the function of women, like most other arguments we've seen, relies on selective picking of textual references to reach an agenda. To support the claim that amative sexuality is superior to reproductive sexuality, Noyes cites Gen 2:18, "he saw it was not good for man to be alone," to reason that companionship came before reproduction. However, just as the feminists hail Genesis 1 and abandon Genesis 2, Noyes does the opposite. The constant repetition in Genesis 1 of "after their kind" (Gen 1:14) and "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28) clearly supports reproductive sexuality that Noyes does not touch upon. In stead, Noyes focuses on Genesis 2, where his claim can be better supported. As per most writers we've seen with agendas, Noyes picks and chooses what will strengthen his argument and leaves out contradictions.
The Oneida community values seem to be a conscious reversal of God's punishment. Both punishments, labor pains for women and a hard working struggle for men, are mitigated by the practice of shabby "birth control." The view of the Fall as an etiology for the modern American marriage seems supportable, as the modern link between reproduction, female inferiority, and male work is undeniable. Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. Once again, we see how different interpreters utilize different parts of the text to support their claims. Previous interpretations referred to the punishment as God's will to validate female subordination. Here, Noyes takes the word of God as the intention of amative love with only occasional reproduction, and attempts to reproduce it.
The entire claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed non-reproductive sex before the fall is founded on a translation of Genesis that improves this argument. Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy." This translation clearly does not support an increase in conception, and just refers to pain upon conception. A quick search on "biblegateway.com" of Genesis 3:16 in all versions shows that most link the pains with pregnancy, while few consider them separately like that of the King James bible. Standing an interpretation on a controversial clause of Genesis makes it easier to claim something without much direct opposing evidence, since many translations exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well read.
"Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. "
I don't think Noyes viewed his interpretation as an etiology (as opposed to a real punishment). He just thinks it's possible to establish a social structure in which true believers can recapture the life in Eden before the 'Fall' by mitigating suffering (work, childbearing) and engaging in the kind of help God intended in the first place.
You're certainly correct in observing that Noyes must ignore Gen 1:27, especially the 'fill the earth' part.
"Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy.""
The KJV translation of 3:16 is literal. Fox has to add the parenthesis to bring the two together, following many translations.
"The Shakers believe in a A=B kind of relationship between man and God. In fact, just because man and woman exist as two different entities doesn’t mean that God exists that way as well. God may possess qualities of both male and female, but the Shakers make a point of differentiating between His role as a mother and as a father, when he might very well be a conglomeration of the two."
Their conclusions result from their essentializing man and woman in the usual way: Father knows best, and mom loves and nurtures.
On Oneida:
"The act of sexual intercourse is something that brings you closer to God, as a group, not in pairs. "
Not exactly. "Amativeness" is not a group behavior; they weren't having orgies. They tried to divorce love and sex from marriage and parenting, permitting sex when two people agreed (it was somewhat more complicated, but that's the general idea). However, I think you woild be correct in saying that they believed that, as a group, their behavior brought them closer to God and to His original intentions for us.
Post a Comment