My my.... this is bringing all manner of information and opinion to the fore.

Pericles, I think your point is probably the most important here.
That very issue, of the fate of the natural uninformed man is something every thinking Christian has to grapple and struggle with in their pilgrimage.
May I refer you to how Paul understood this? For me, I have complete faith in the justice of God, and also His sovereignty. Paul answers this specific issue in 2 places. Please have a read and then see how it addresses your point.
Romans 2:12-16
This is one of those sections over which there is considerable debate. I recommend placing it in the larger context of Pauls opening statement in Chapter 1:1
Then, Pauls understanding is further expanded in Romans 9:14-21
But should be read with the whole chapter for context. Again, I emphasise that this be seen in the light of Chapter_1:1

STEEL. "harm" there are many types. Social harm..to our value system, to the impressionable minds of neighbours young children, a general breakdown of our values.

BUGSY. I want to tackle the ramifications of your Zulu/British/cultural_relativist point. Yes, I see that, no problem.
But I'm seeking to limit the discussion to the specific area of sexual behavior. If, for example we have no information about the rightness or wrongness of various sexual behaviors, don't you agree that it is open slather for those who wish to persue such things to organize and politicize and aggressively promote such things?

On the other hand, if we have a social concience which has as part of its foundation "Sex with animals is 'wrong' period" "Sex with one's children is 'wrong' period" etc..do you not feel we have a better chance of building a safer and better community? (I'm aware those words "safer,better" are relative to one's moral centre of gravity)

Surely we can recognize that the prohibition of such things in Leviticus is positive? yet we cannot from our historical perspective relate well to the severity of the punishments right? More to come on this.

Rob...naughty naughty.. you know I don't want to throw rocks at people.. just a few spinning back kicks:)

Peppy.. your comment about 'tried it' did little for your "defense of Islam" position mate.

"Incest(etc) in the Bible" On this I must by now be seeming like a broken record, but ..sigh.. here we go. 'Reporting' behaviour is not an endorsement of it. The Bible also contains lists of Kings, and each one's behavior is listed and the conclusion "Thus king so and so did EVIL (or 'good')in the sight of the Lord" etc etc.. So, please don't waste everyone's time by saying such shallow things as "Oh...shock horror, the Bible 'mentions' blah blah".

MORAL ANCHOR. It seems from some comments that my point about our need for a moral anchor is well made. Such an anchor cannot come though legislation alone, but legislation will ultimately reflect our values.

SUMMARY. Looking at the various references to 'Crimes against Nature' as found in the statutes of the British Empire, and formerly in most States of the USA, it is clear that in many cases the Biblical position was exceeded, rather than followed. Trying to define all manner of what constituted a crime against nature led to a Pharisaical approach of huge lists of behaviours. The bible only lists

-Homosexual behaviour.
-Incest
-Bestiality
-Adultery
-Leading children astray.

as being prohibited. It says nothing about masturbation or 'creative' stimulation between heterosexual couples. The law books tried to specify "everything" they considered crimes against nature, and thus exceeded the Biblical mandate by adding human opinion.

Boazy - sorry to interrupt you mid-rant again, but would you please give more information about the radio program that you say prompted this rather silly post - like the day, time and program title? Like I said, I've searched the RN site but can find no mention of it.

The reason I ask is that, as someone who knows quite a bit about prehistoric rock art, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you'd significantly distorted the content of the article in order to make your point. Also, as someone who has read many of your distortions and outright fabrications in this forum, I wouldn't be very surprised if it turns out that you've just made this one up too.

Please provide independent evidence of the program's content, otherwise I'm afraid I'll just have to file this one together with all the other "Boaz Porkies".

Boaz, if I had wanted Paul's opinion, I would have asked him.

>>the fate of the natural uninformed man is something every thinking Christian has to grapple and struggle with in their pilgrimage.
May I refer you to how Paul understood this?<<

So, tell me about the grappling and struggling you went through. How did you personally come to reconcile the unfairness of it all?

Nevertheless, ever obedient to your wishes, I took a look at Romans. I have to say that 1.1 reminded me of the more rabid of those Southern US evangelists with its references to "being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things..." etc. etc. ad naus.

But I guess he was their role model, so why should I be surprised.

But I did get a surprise when I accidentally slipped over the boundary into Chapter 2 - I found Paul was talking to you, Boaz!!

Yes, really!

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things"

As the principle judge around here of everything Islam, Boaz, it might benefit you to think hard about what Paul is telling you.

I think that the hardest aspect of debating with you Boaz (and yes, I did notice that debating was on Paul's list of evil) is the sneaky way you keep shifting ground.

At every opportunity, you provide bible texts that you consider provide support to your argument, but refuse to accept any texts that contradict you. Somehow the ones you choose are meant to be taken literally, while everything else is somehow allusive or metaphorical.

For instance, you never did get back to me on "bring them hither, and slay them before me"

Hypocrisy is such a nasty word. It should also appear on Paul's list of unpleasantnesses.

Pericles,

Blasmephy. How can you possibly accuse Boaz of being a self righeous hypercrite? Don't you know that he sits at the right hand of God and gives HIM advise on which of us are worthy of His blessings.

Bugsy,
Don't want to take this thread off topic but Isandhlwana wasn't a massacre. The Brits were an armed force with the latest European technology, sort of. Pity their leaders took the Zulu lightly.