Hank's Infidelity

Remember the theme of the previous chapter? Is your focus Intangible or Tangible?

MARRIAGE
A teenager asks a religious leader, "What do you think of sex before marriage?"

When the religious leader says it is wrong or a sin, the teenager will ask, "What is your definition of "marriage" because according to the Bible, consensual sexual intercourse IS marriage? Where did you get your definition?"

The definition of marriage from the beginning of time has been consensual sexual intercourse!

State recognized marriage didn’t occur until the 1500’s through The Marriage Ordinance of Geneva: "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage." Notice, this only covers the Western World. Actually, the tradition of “Christian marriage” was the work of John Calvin, the creator of Determinism!

As for the public ceremony ("wedding"), this was made law in England and Wales by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753. This act required a formal ceremony of marriage with vows in order to curtail the practice of “Fleet Marriage”. A Fleet Marriage is a clandestine marriage getting its name because they took place at Fleet Prison.

At that time, under English law, a marriage was recognized as valid if each spouse had simply expressed (to each other) an unconditional consent to their marriage. No particular words were necessary; no clergyman or registrar need be present; no witnesses were required. Just a vow.

Notice: The Act of 1753 didn’t require the church to be involved at all.

Most people married in church, however, since the church desired it, and the family and friends expected it. Vows could be exchanged by a boy as young as 14 and a girl as young as 12. The church expected parental consent for those under the age of 21.

Summary of the origin of our traditional understanding of “marriage” and “wedding”:
John Calvin introduced the concept of government marriage to the Western World in the 1500’s and the Act of 1753 introduced the concept of a "wedding" ceremony.

The reason translating the Bible into English was forbidden and punishable by death as late as the 1300’s was because the state didn’t want the common man marrying more than one wife. Marriage was able to occur without the state and the church and everyone knew it!

If a religious leader says God is against consensual sex before marriage, the only way this can be true is if the religious leader is defining “marriage” as the current state approved marriage based on tradition created by man.

The teenager then lets the religious leader know he is actually putting the man-made tradition above the Biblical definition of marriage and wedding! If a pastor or “Christian” author makes this claim, they are actually teaching tradition in place of God’s Word! They are actually representing the government, not God, in this important and very public doctrine. Teaching man-made doctrine in place of God’s doctrine is what the Pharisees did!

Again, it isn’t necessarily a sin if this person has been putting tradition in place of the Word of God and didn’t know it. The issue of sin comes with the person's RESPONSE to being made aware of being wrong...

What does the religious leader say when the teenager makes him aware of this?

It's at this point, the teenager can say to the religious leader, "It looks like you have two choices if you want to continue saying you are representing God and not the state: either tell people to go back to the first person they had intercourse with or teach them about divorce."

If the religious leader stays in the conversation, the discussion quickly turns to Divorce...


DIVORCE
A teenager asks a religious leader to interpret Mark 10:11-12.

Here are the verses in the most popular version of the Bible (New International Version):

"11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

The religious leader will say, "If a man or woman divorces their spouse and marries another, they are committing adultery."

The teenager then says:
-Jesus lived under the Law of the Old Testament.
-The Old Testament doctrine of divorce was given in Deuteronomy 24 and...
-it said a man could divorce a woman.
-Was Jesus saying doing the Law resulted in sin?
-Paul said in Romans the Law is good and doesn't result in sin.
-The New Testament said Jesus fulfilled the Law.
-If doing the Law results in sin, did Jesus sin?
-If He did, He wasn't the Son of God!
-Are you saying Jesus isn't the Son of God?

That covered verse 11. WORSE, look at verse 12...

The teenager then says:
-Jesus lived under the Law of the Old Testament and...
-under the Law, a woman could NOT divorce a man.
-If Jesus said a woman could divorce a man, then it would prove He didn't know the Law, which means He wouldn't be the Son of God!
-Are you saying Jesus isn't the Son of God?

Actually, the word used in Mark 10:11-12 was "putting away", which is different than "divorce". (If you really want to know the difference, I will send it to you separately in excruciating detail.) The King James Version and the American Standard Version both use "putting away" and NO ONE owns these versions. Here it is in the King James Version:

"11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Every version other than the King James Version and the American Standard Version uses "divorce" and all of them are owned by someone focused on making money.

Every version other than the KJV and ASV ACTUALLY present a Jesus that is NOT the Son of God!

The church in America is a business.

The church in America and its religious leaders are the same as the stories about the Pharisees during the New Testament.

(Realize, the divorce statistics say people in church have the same divorce rate as people outside of church and there is a "divorce ban" in church, so not everyone who WANTS to get divorced does. So, the rate of people WANTING divorce is actually higher for people who go to church. Is church bad for your marriage? That's a question engaged couples can ask of their religious leaders...)

Is your focus Intangible or Tangible?

One of the definitions of "contract" is "to make smaller". Marriage is not a contract. Marriage is a covenant explained in five steps and it ought to get BIGGER. The first step of the covenant is AGREEMENT and the covenant is completed with consensual sexual intercourse.

Divorce is the severing of the covenant through the recognition the covenant partners are no longer in AGREEMENT unless you are focused on the Tangible.

Here are the Tangible premises with the Intangible truth in parenthesis:
-Marriage is a contract (Wrong: It is a covenant)
-Hank is married to Lillian (Wrong: They are divorced)
-Hank had an affair with Dagny (Wrong: They are married)

0 for 3. Ouch!

SUMMARY
Hank is at Focus and thinks contrastively. His unconscious is trying to help him Flow and as he allows it to guide his actions it takes him towards doing intangible truths the OPPOSITE of tangible logical effects and he grapples with the apparent contradiction.

Notice, Dagny's first marriage was to a man at Focus who thought contrastively (Francisco).

Her second marriage is to a different man at Focus (Hank) who thinks contrastively.

Look at the following passages from earlier in the novel.

"He touched the bracelet in his pocket. He had had it made from that first poured metal. It was for his wife."

"As he touched it, he realized suddenly that he had thought of an abstraction called "his wife" - not of the woman to whom he was married."

These sentences from chapter 2 show Hank had seen the bracelet as a gift to be given (shared) with his "wife" and only his wife, and Lillian didn't fit his conception of "wife".

This manifests in chapter 6 at the anniversary party, specifically with the chain Hank had meant for his "wife".

"Dagny had turned away. She felt calm and free. The pressure was gone. The need to get out had vanished."

Why did she feel settled after Lillian gave the chain to her?

First of all, giving people what they demand at Evasion results in them NOT ramping up more.

Second, the reason she "felt calm and free" was becoming Hank's wife settled her!

"She clasped the metal bracelet on her wrist. She liked the feel of the weight against her skin. Inexplicably, she felt a touch of feminine vanity, the kind she had never experienced before: the desire to be seen wearing this particular ornament."

What is the "particular ornament" women desire to be seen wearing? An engagement ring! Dagny is settled because she is engaged to Hank. How did Hank handle this?

"Through the agony of the years of his marriage, there had been one thought which he would not permit himself to consider: the thought of infidelity. He had given his word. He intended to keep it. It was not loyalty to Lillian: it was not the person of Lillian that he wished to protect from dishonor - but the person of his wife."

Hank realized he would never be unfaithful to his wife AND Lillian was not his wife. Hank essentially divorced Lillian when he didn't have sex with her.

There is more to explain, however, we need to work our way up to a couple of principles in order to understand it.

Watch whether people consider the root cause to be Intangible or Tangible. If they are focused on a Tangible cause, any solution they arrive it will have to be addressed again in the future...


Return to chapter post: The Sacred and the Profane