ON ARKS, ONLY BEGOTTEN SONS, AIDS, AND SPARROWS

The words you're about to read are not the outpourings of a deeply religious-minded person, but rather one who tries to look at all things in a practical light.

Moreover, the intent here is not to debate in the slightest regarding the authenticity of the Bible.
For purposes of this treatise, it must be presumed that all the words in the Good Book represent
absolute facts. Otherwise, proceeding any further would be useless.

The Book of Genesis tells how God advised Noah to build an Ark, so that each living animal species might be preserved to "start over". Then came the Flood, wiping out all land-based creatures in the known world of that era, except for those aboard the vessel.

What is the theological significance of said event? Simply that the Almighty had become disappointed with how Mankind -- conceived in His own image -- had grown to behave. He elected to eradicate His mistake and offer a second chance in that world sector considered to be the seat of religion.

Therefore God, in His infinite wisdom, carried out a destructive act against His living beings. So what was the result? Did Man wise up and improve upon its ways? We all know the answer to that.

Since taking such a devastating course had accomplished little in the long run, a second gigantic gesture was then made -- this time a most productive one. The Lord begat and placed His own son among the people on earth, as described in the first four books of the New Testament.

There is no need to elaborate on the story about Jesus' life and death. Most of us have already been thoroughly indoctrinated on that score. The important point is the manifold influence wrought by the Son of God. Christianity has become the world's dominant faith, and has affected our life styles, business practices, and laws, often infringing significantly upon those who choose different religious pursuits.

Truly, the coming of Christ indeed proved to be supremely influential. His presence may well be felt for ongoing millennia. Unquestionably, this was the Almighty's most productive act since earth's creation.

Did this master step work? We might say yes, at least in contrast to the Ark bit. Still, would you call Mankind's subsequent performance/behavior pattern to date adequate in respect to God's divine will? Absolutely not, and we see no need to cite the countless whats and whys of our negative response to such question.

We've now reached the stage in this writing where biblical "fact" leaves off and supposition must take over.

Within very recent years, a strange hitherto unknown physical malady has contaminated our population. The medical brains have dubbed it the Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS for short. Only homosexuals and prostitutes were attacked at first, but the effect has since become far more widespread, even among many innocent of unnatural or promiscuous misdeeds.

Some relatively fanatical religious types have rationalized AIDS as a "penalty" imposition upon the less-than-straight-and-true populace. Although initial reaction of a logical-minded person might be to scoff at such theory, a little probing analysis actually tends to support the idea, no matter how ridiculous it may sound right off.

If we look back at the Almighty's two "really big" past acts in dealing with humanity -- one destructive, the other productive -- does it not stand to reason that a selective process has now been put into play? Can we arbitrarily dismiss the thought that God has chosen to inflict punishment on those who offend him, due to their immoral habits? Might placing a death sentence upon those who engage in such practices be of divine origin?

Still, we find a strict affirmative answer rather difficult to offer, on the premise that the innocent are suffering and dying along with the guilty. Many men, women, and children bearing untarnished records must have perished in the Flood. With our presumption of unquestionable fact for the Holy Scriptures, it must stand to reason as well that God Himself is not perfect. The "He who weeps at the fall of a sparrow" reference could be a debatable issue.

Prolonging the conjecture on this last topic seems needless, except to simply add that, taken in isolation, our AIDS thesis could easily be deemed unacceptable. Nevertheless, when viewed in perspective with the two major foregoing events -- provided they are considered factual by the reader -- the idea does appear to have merit.

None of us here today can really prove or disprove either the Ark or the Messiah acts to have occurred as written about. Individual interpretations remain a matter of personal belief. However, the last point we've raised, which may eventually impact the entire human race in some way, should at least be viewed as a thought-provoking subject.