Steve,
Thank you for keeping this discussion on track with reason. I agree - we are all often wrong an awful lot.
I'll do the best to present my thoughts regarding the two questions that it seems are still outstanding - the issue of AIDS being more than a random happenstance, and the issue of why God would harden Pharoah's heart.
Let me deal with the biblical issue first. Since we are dealing with what is biblical history, as you said - there is no other proof they really happened. Yet if we accept the biblical version - even for discussion - then we should look at the same source for the answer. As I mentioned, chapter 4 shows that Pharoah was advised he would lose his firstborn son if he failed to let the Israelites go. When he choose 6 times to refuse, the die was cast. Basing the answer on just what the Bible states, it is clear that the repercussions were already set up ahead of time. Once the refusals kicked in - God acted to insure that the outcome was what He had promised.
To let Pharoah refuse and "get away" with it, would make God out a liar. The last plague is the fulfillment of the repercussions stated earlier. The 9th plague is important in that earlier God stated He would show His glory - by darkening the sun He was showing the power over the god of Pharoah - who was ra, the god of the sun.
God hardened Pharoah's heart for the final plagues to prove His supremacy and to fulfill the promise of Pharoah losing his firstborn if he refused the Will of God.
Now, as for the AIDS question. Homosexuality has been around for more than just a few decades. AIDS was first identified in the 1940's (first US case in 1969). History of various cultures shows us that homosexuality has been known in humanity for at least a few thousand years. HIV is a human version of SIV - monkey AIDS basically. The thing is, that virus has been around for millenia - an estimated 32000 years if you believe researchers at Tulane university.
http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_09162010.cfm
Allow me to quote one very important note:
Quote:
The study also raises a question about the origin of HIV. If humans have been exposed to SIV-infected monkeys for thousands of years, why did the HIV epidemic only begin in the 20th century?
"Something happened in the 20th century to change this relatively benign monkey virus into something that was much more potent and could start the epidemic. We don't know what that flashpoint was, but there had to be one," Marx says.
|
This is in reference to the fact that mankind has been eating SIV infected monkeys for generations - and out of the blue "something" causes this virus to mutate.
Yet if you read the article, you find out something else. SIV is primarily NON-LETHAL to its host. HIV is primarily LETHAL to its host. Not only did this virus jump across species - it also changed how deadly it is. All in one fell swoop, with no identifiable reason. Then take into account how resistent this virus has proven to be against modern medicine.
Heck, some groups even swear that HIV was an engineered virus because of its unique traits. The most stubborn close comparison is cancer, though that has afflicted mankind for thousands of years and is a lot more understood and treatable (as well as curable in some cases) than HIV. Yet cancer is still more responsive overall to treatment - even though those cells have had longer to adapt.
Next look at where the HIV epidemic took root. The most affected groups were homosexuals and drug users. Their lifestyle (an expressed affront to God) exposed them to the dangers of HIV at much higher rates than those who did not commit such acts. Thus those communities were substantially more affected. This is simply an outcome that falls into line with the Romans passage I mentioned earlier.
It should be noted that HIV has progressed more and more into the heterosexual community. The fact that this spread matches the timeline in which society has become more generally accepting of homosexuality and drug usage is a rather interesting sidenote, is it not? Coincidence?
One could say that because homosexuality opens up greater health risks, its only natural that that community would be more affected. But then health sciences and studies of human sexuality in regards to health were probably not a really high priority project when Romans was written (about 50-60 AD, or 2000+ years ago), so how would the writer or writers be able to make a statement that says in essence that the homosexual community would "reap what they sow"? Coincidence again?
Like I said - circumstancial evidence - no smoking gun. However, the facts do match up rather well to the construct.