And another thing…

Hooray! Perhaps you can be converted yet.

I have no problem with people being refused entry if they are seen as trouble makers who are not British citizens. But Labour must be even handed.
They allowed the Hezbola leader in who expresses hatred of Jews and stop this dutchman. Labour are always partial never fair.

What’s needed is consistency, we either clamp down on all the hate mongers or we allow them all to have their say. Most of the sensible comment on the Wilders affair is around the lack of clarity from the government.

In addition, it doesn’t help matters that our Foreign Secretary can’t open his mouth without coming across like a complete Muppet. I thought it was typically moronic for Miniblair to condemn the video in quite vitriolic terms, then admit under questioning that he hadn’t actually seen it.

“Christianity, like Islam, is similarly incompatible with western values”

What values?………..

“the Bible teaches that women should be subservient to their husbands”

You have been conditioned to believe this is a bad thing. Anyway, I think ’subservient’ is the wrong word. I tell you, I have met lots of women who go to the denominations that get a bad press for supposedly treating women as second class citizens. How come, then, they are generally the most pleasant, strong and independent women out there?…..Because Feminism was invented by evil men – to weaken women and families – to re-engineer society……….

I don’t know anything about Geert Wilders, but he is dead right that Islam is a real threat, not to our ‘western values’ most of which, these days, are worthless, but to our Christian values………

When did Christ say that slavery could be tolerated? He said people should be treated fairly. We probably have as much slavery now as then; it’s just called by different names……….

Whether you want to keep the lax western ‘values’ of today or if you enjoy the sanity of our Christian heritage – Islamists endanger your future. It is a culture clash. We have seen many times already how much intolerance there is at the slightest thing……….

Tom, you have been saying lately how important freedom of speech is. These hate ‘preachers’ and even now the first Muslim in the House of Lords want to stop all criticism. This is my country and your country. You are appeasing these people we have welcomed to our land and are now turning on us………..

If we get on the slippery slope of Sharia law, look out for a rise in the number of crushed private parts for sex crimes and missing hands for theft, etc……….

And when was the last time a Christian stoned a homosexual to death? I don’t know where you get your ideas from sometimes, Tom. Really, I don’t. Give yourself a good shake.

“I have no knowledge of the Koran” (best then to leave pronouncements on their beliefs to those who have)

“the Muslims with whom I’m friendly seem to have no problem integrating with British society” ( a rather self-selecting demographic then, isn’t it?)

“you could argue that Christianity, like Islam, is similarly incompatible with western values”
(You could, but then you would be missing out the bit about Jesus Christ and you already said you have no knowledge of the Koran)

“I probably couldn’t sustain a coherent argument” (de facto)

I come from an Evangelic background, and I’m personally much more scared about christians then muslims. Would England refuse entry to Jewish or American citizens that call for wiping Iran of the map? It seems hard to find a mainstream publication discussing Iran without that in the comments section.
Naturally we are not so worried if millions of us are calling for their destruction, as if one of them were calling for ours.
The Finnish gov. formed a comittee of intellectuals about ten years ago prepare a report on the future. The book succesfully predicts the rise of terrorism, targetting civilians, though they said it would be ‘to give terrorism a bad name’ before the ‘masses realize their selfish interests have been compromised’ and that ‘their access to politics and media has been lost’.

The rise of Islam as a huge threat to western society is being suppressed so as not to upset these people. In years to come we will wish we had acted sooner. Religion in all its forms is a huge threat.

The trouble is, the ban has had, predictably, the opposite effect intended. If Geert Wilders had been allowed in, no-one would have noticed, his film ignored and he would have returned home without me, and no doubt most others, having never heard of him.

Instead he is all over the news and now a ‘freedom of speech’ martyr

These cases always highlight the trouble of where to draw the line, especially if based on a loose interpretation of ‘incitement to religious hatred’. Wherever you draw the line it will throw up inconsistencies.

I suspect though, as Johnny as pointed out above, that had Wilders expressed similarly bigoted and vitriolic views against Jews or Christians, the response would have been instead; ‘yeah come into Britain, no problem’.

Unless he calls for death to Muslims, I don’t think he should be banned. I’m sure many people travel through this country with views that are distasteful, but unless they’re calling for people to be hurt or killed then I don’t think they really cause much trouble. Even then, does somebody who supports a war count as somebody inciting violence? In the end, people die … these rules need to be tidied up.

Stewart Cowan: “What values?”

Liberalism, tolerance, secularism, equality – you probably have good, scriptural arguments against all of them, Stewart, and perhaps some Islamists do also. But either a Christian or a Muslim theocracy would have a lot less of all four.

Incidentally, the term “Islamist” normally refers to those Muslims who want to re-establish the Caliphate and who believe that the western values I describe above are evil and should be overthrown by “jihad”. I assume you meant it in this sense and not as a general term to describe all Muslims?

Religion is an abomination, devised during a time when he couldn’t logically exlain the sunrise and sunset etc. It was all borne out of superstition. Eliminate religion and crown Christopher Hitchens as the Atheist Pope, and Richard Dawkins as the Archbishop of Atheism. That statement is full of contradictions.

“Would England refuse entry to Jewish or American citizens that call for wiping Iran of the map?”

If only. The thought of the ghastly Hilary Clinton being banned for her comments on the subject during the primaries last year has brightened my day considerably!

Actually, “western values” are to a large extent (although obviously not exclusively) a product of the Reformation, as Christians tried to work out how to live in a post-medieval world. For example:

1. In the Presbyterian tradition each person was equal, each had a voice and vote in decision making and there was no monarch-bishop heirarchy. This tradition was taken by Scots-Irish settlers to America and essentially underpins the US constitution.

2. Presbyterians also championed education, believing that all should be able to read the Bible and interpret it for themselves, encouraging challenge and question of authority figures.

3. Many of the early attempts at providing welfare, particularly in the 19th century, were through religious organisations or individuals (Shaftesbury, Elizabeth Fry, William Booth). That evolved into welfare provision by the state in the 20th century.

4. The Methodist tradition provided impetus to the early feminist movement, as women were regarded in Methodism as equal to men, and were equally able to lead and preach. It’s a shame some traditions didn’t take notice.

Yes, extreme fundamentalism of whatever sort is incompatible with western values. Moderate people who are trying to work out how to love their neighbour aren’t.

Tom, you don’t have to justify letting someone into the country; you have to justify not letting someone in.

Innocent until proved guilty should be the rule.

Also, as Wilder is from an EU member state his being barred is de-facto against EU rules unless a convincing case can be made. A convincing case is not that David Miliband and Jacqui Smith think it will offend their Muslim constituents or their desire to be seen as anti-jew or pro-islamic or whatever the flavour of the day is amongst left-wing intellectuals (though given their comments I suspect both would love to impose sharia law as long as they became kaliff). As you have written, no one has the right not to be offended.

What is in the film that Miliband didn’t watch?
Quotes from the Koran and news footage.
Are quotes from the Koran anti-islamic?
Is using them to explain violence by adherents to that faith wrong? after all al-queda also quote the same passages to justify their attacks.

On the incompatabilty of the Bible and “western values”; if by that you mean your values and those you agree with perhaps, however western civilisation is, like it or not, founded on Christian values not the writings of the buddha or lenin or the latest meanderings from the self styled avant guard elite.

Fitna has been available online for ages, and is pretty crude. It never generated the controversy Wilders wanted (far less than the Jyllands-Posten cartoons). This has just provided him with avoidable publicity and laid his opponents open to accusations of double standards.

For example, please tell me that Keith Vaz didn’t actually say ‘if you want free speech then go to Holland’? If he did: go Boris!

Remember this is almost exactly 20 years since the Satanic Verses controversy. The militants were faced down that time. Have those who see nothing ominous in burning books finally won in Britain? Was the principle of freedom of expression abandoned under Labour or the Tories? Shame on any Government that surrenders such a hard-won precept.

Me: “What values?”

TH: “Liberalism, tolerance, secularism, equality”

a) Too liberal; far too liberal. Some people even believe there is no such thing as sin – this is a disaster for society.

b) We are too tolerant of things that should not be tolerated, like losing our sovereignty and being refused a referendum. This is our country too!

c) Secularism’s been a great success, hasn’t it? No common rules; no common ground; lack of patriotism equals disunity and creates traitors.

d) Equality? “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal” (Aristotle)……….
Tom, where will the UN/EU/New Labour “equality” drive be when you have all caved in to Sharia Law and those with “lifestyle choices” involving homosexual acts, adultery and bestiality are beaten to a bloody pulp or worse? Or a teenage girl who has been gang raped or a woman who calls her teddy bear ‘Mohammed’…… It is the Government’s job to look ahead and ensure certain things don’t happen……David Steel didn’t think his abortion bill would result in six million deaths (to date) and I put it to you that you underestimate the situation regarding Islam……….

I’m sure most Muslims are nice people, but, when push comes to shove and they are made to choose between their country* and religion, which will it be? Your actual Islamists surely require a world surrendered to Allah and I’m sure they can raise an army to give it a shot………. We need to resist tyranny, whether it be from the EU, Islam or our own.
.:.:.:.:
*Scouts in Dundee are now allowed to pledge to honour “the country in which I am now living” instead of the Queen. I’m not a royalist, but what does this tell you?

I have just seen Keith Vaz, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, defending the ban on Wilders.

Newsnight Labourette, Kirsty Wark, demolished him after he admitted he had not seen the film.

And these people are running the country.

Where are you getting your briefings from? Wikipedia?

I’d certainly agree that fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are incompatible with Western liberal, secular values. Christianity has had an appalling history of authoritarianism, oppression, support for slavery, censorship, corruption and use of torture over for many hundreds of years. That’s to name just a few sins, and, despite the Reformation, some of the worst excesses continued on until the mid 19th century. Indeed a toleration, and even promotion, of discriminatory behaviour continued late on into the 20th Century as a matter of policy in some branches of Christianity.

Nor do I think that it is completely dead – it certainly seems to be the case that an overtly religious US president, very possibly with the acquiescence of a covertly religious Prime Minister, promoted the use of what very many people would consider to be torture.

So is Islam capable of being used to promote values incompatible with western liberal values? Well of course it is – in fact it has been, as was Christianity, Communism, Fascism and any number of other “creeds of certainty”. It’s that which is the true problem, and once we stop debate, and especially provocative debate which opposes these interest groups, we are on a very, very slippery slope.

In this particular case then the reason for the ban is quite simple – it was simply a cynical decision by a not-very-good Home Secretary to appease a vociferous part of the Labour party’s electorate in the name of winning a few votes. If the video truly did promote hatred in a direct sense, then the right thing is to prosecute and let a court decide. The fact that the video is freely available does, I believe, say it all. That appalling performance by Keith Vaz on Newsnight simply revealed he’d been chosen to be the fall guy for an unsustainable argument.

Steve Jones – “Christianity has had an appalling history of authoritarianism, oppression, support for slavery, censorship, corruption and use of torture over for many hundreds of years.”

No, that’s Catholicism and other cults. It was Christians like Wm Wilberforce who ended black slavery.

President Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, btw.

“Christianity, Communism, Fascism” What? Jesus, Stalin, Hitler?

Why so much confusion over Christ’s teachings and religious dogma?

Stewart Cowan
Since when was Catholicism not a branch of Christianity? And here did I say that all Christians had perpetrated this? What I said was there a history of oppression in Christianity much as there has been in the history of the UK.

The Reformation did, of course, do something to break the domination of an especially corrupt church, but the various Protestant churches that immediately followed still presided and gave both tacit and even explicit support to colonialism, slavery, class, racial discrimination and any number of things which we currently consider bad. Yes, various non-conformist Church’s later played a large part in the abolition of slavery, but that was the work of certain inspired individuals and was far from universal. Similarly inspired individuals in these days can work outside of these particular organisations.

As for the teaching of Jesus – well this is all revisionism and subject to the interpretation in the light of history and social experiences. The New Testament is not full of the appalling lessons that we see in the old, but it’s an after-the-fact document and much of it fits ill with modern society. The Bible was heavily edited, parts omitted and is full of contradictions. So if there is confusion over the teachings of Christ, then that is as we would expect when dealing with any historical document revised and edited by fallible human beings. All readings of the Bible are subjective; to whole communities, to families and to individuals. If it meant the same thing to everybody then there would be no schisms between Churches, no theological debate, no differences on the nature of divinity, on the representation of God on Earth. But there are, and it is because we are all human beings who are fallible, and those who believe that they have some divine route to the truth, whether personal or received, are just fooling themselves.

I’m very ready to accept that the western society that we have has emerged from centuries of gradual moral and ethical development, very much grounded in the Reformation – far more so than the Bible itself. However, I would contend that the natural result of the Reformation is liberal, Western secularism and not Methodists or Presbyterians or Quakers whatever other branch you favour. Not to say that they might not encourage decent ways of living and treating people, but it is how individuals and communities treat each other that matter. Not some arbitrary current interpretation of ancient folklore.

Churches are social structures and movements – they are not some representation of truth on Earth. My version, in that I can come close to it, comes from empiricism and least some hope to understand the real nature and drives of humankind. But certain, I am not and am deeply suspicious of those that are. The great Jacob Bronowski, in the Ascent of Man, quoted Oliver Cromwell (ironically, a man not know for uncertainty) on this very subject.

“In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken’. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to *touch people*.”

Steve – we live in a fallen world, hence many people have hijacked Christianity for their gain, financial and/or political. If you can become leader of a religion with millions of followers, great power will be yours, especially if you can make people believe that to get to their God they have to go through you.
:::
“Since when was Catholicism not a branch of Christianity?”

Churches that worship Mary and statues of saints and make many other such mistakes have broken with Christ’s teachings. The pope is not, nor cannot be, infallible. That’s not to say there aren’t righteous Catholics, Mormons, etc., but I think they should seek to understand their Maker more.
:::
“All readings of the Bible are subjective”

They shouldn’t be, but I know, again because of our fallen nature, that some folk like to justify their behaviour by reading things into scripture that aren’t there, however, Christ taught in terms of black and white and if we’re being honest when we read the gospels, it is quite easy to understand right from wrong.
:::
“I’m very ready to accept that the western society that we have has emerged from centuries of gradual moral and ethical development, very much grounded in the Reformation”
Would you also accept that the current moral decline, due to the promotion of moral relativism (New Labour being a world leader), is responsible for the current decline of western culture? (as evidenced by bad manners – a pile of bricks is called art – someone speaking (not even singing) obscenities is now music – the state says fathers are no longer a requirement for children* – I could go on and on).
:::
Empiricism, I suppose, is what helps in a way to bring a person to Christ. The experience of my 45 years and the evidence I see for a special Creation leave me in no doubt we are not a cosmic accident.
:::
“We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power.”
Man always has and always will have the drive for knowledge and dominion. It’s how he uses it that matters!
:::
*Tom Harris actually voted for keeping the requirement to consider a child’s need for a father before fertility treatment. Well done, sir (you know it makes sense).

@Steve Jones
in that I can come close to it, comes from empiricism and least some hope to understand the real nature and drives of humankind

If one must be empirical then recent events would lead one to conclude that the nature and drives of humans is to become rich and/or powerful with as little effort as possible and that morality is for idiots.
The banking system hasn’t failed, the aim of the bankers/traders was to enrich themselves and in this they have been succesful; they care not a jot about the damage done to others.
It is, possibly, a short term advantage and the long term damage to society may destroy the society but there is no teleology in empiricism exception that added by the individual so long term planning and concepts of the “general good” don’t enter into it.
Empirically (with added teleology) the robber bankers and their political accomplises should be punished for the good of society (bad acts should be punished, moral culpability) but this isn’t going to happen; rather bad acts are being rewarded.

The concept of the good of society is a human concept and not an empirical one and one can’t derive ought from is.

@Chris Wills
The empiricism is all about finding out about the nature of humankind. Indeed greed, laziness and all that stuff. But the sense of collective morality that we have comes from that nature too. Societies that were isolated from the rest of the World had their own ethical and moral standards. They weren’t deposited by the teachings of the Bible.

No – the sense of what is good and evil comes from inside people as a group. It changes, and adapts. We have malleable natures and reasoning. But underneath it all is a basic nature which we have to come to terms with and for the majority to prosper then the excesses of the minority have to be controlled in some way. I just do not believe that these moral and ethical standards are absolute and handed down from some divine being.

@Stewart Cowan
I’d readily agree that if you become leader of a church then it is very possible for corruption to follow. That follows from any powerful institution. I think it becomes even more dangerous when the leader can claim divine authority (as monarchs used to do). This is by no means limited to churchman – the hideous crimes of Stalin and Mao were justified through an appeal to the certainties of Marxism (and not a few people of the left in my youth supported the latter or these two on this other “creed of certainty”).

As for a fallen world – well I think there is a case to be made that, as a society, we take better care of individuals than ever before in history, although maybe at the cost of individual involvement. However, it’s hardly a new thing for people to decry the state now. If we suffered the murder rates of the Elizabethans, when religion held sway, then we would be horrified.

I’m also quite certain that in some areas we have gone backwards. My background and education is in science, and there has been a massive backward step in standards in that area. Speaking somebody who goes back 8 years further than you, I think I recognise something like the end of a golden age of rationalism and scientific endeavour in this country. Much of what passes for scientific education in school these days has been replaced by being able to talk about science, rather than do it. My old university has found it necessary to add a fourth, remedial year to all their degree courses. Not, of course, on-message for your average party MP, but then they are in a sales and presentation game.

I should add, that as somebody trained in physics, then I see plenty of evidence of humankind and life being the result of chance. If you are into the technicalities of it, then there is a particular hole around the literally incredible chance of the laws of physics being so stunningly fine tuned so as to make a Universe like ours possible at all. However, I have been satisfied for a long time that theories based on the multiverse are the best fit. Coming up with the idea of a divine creator just pushes the problem back one more level. But I cannot be certain – and nor, I believe, can anybody else be.

There’s also that other issue – if one does believe in divine intervention, then how does one go about choosing the particular belief system to follow? Judaism, Islam and Christianity all formed from the same roots and are heavily intertwined, but the theological and cultural differences have lead to horrendous conflicts. Buddhism and Hinduism are wildly different from this and highly variable themselves. That’s without the literally hundreds of different faith systems that emerged all over the world independently. The systems in the Americas before the Spanish crashed their way in were very different to those in the known world.

I can only make sense of these as cultural constructs. It’s a simple fact that the great majority of followers of belief systems are there because it is the faith of their community and family, not because they made a free choice as an adult having researched the options with a mind unaffected by previous experience.

As for the arts – well that’s something that time will tell. In general quality will tell. In the short term, then the operation or the art world is something like fashion with wealthy sponsors. I am certainly inclined to think that a lot of it is without lasting merit, but then I’m probably considered the sort of philistine that often favours craftsmanship over ideas. I have working class roots, and something of a soft spot for the pride, self-discipline and drive of the master craftsmen.

Heard on ‘The News Quiz’: Islam and Christianity – Judaism with the jokes taken out

Thanks, Steve. I’m not pretending there was some great golden era for ordinary people in terms of comfort. Because of the Fall of Adam, the Almighty said to him, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
I think for a while, partly thanks to Old Labour and the Trades Unions, ordinary people were getting a much more comfortable life – but it was based on the work ethic. Today, of course, like you suggest, the state is so involved in people’s lives that they have lost their independence as they get shepherded through the Benefits system.
:::
Thank you for providing further evidence, not that it is required, for what we all know are the plummeting standards in education. Why doesn’t your old Uni just make the exams easier? It works in the schools.
:::
Don’t let our Richard (oftentimes commentator here) hear you say that there is “plenty of evidence of humankind and life being the result of chance.”
He insists that in a godless universe life was duty bound to happen.
:::
“Coming up with the idea of a divine creator just pushes the problem back one more level.”
No; everything starts to make sense. Then you can be amazed at how some people believe in the Theory of Evolution.
:::
Your point about people staying with the religion they were brought up with is a good one. As Christians, we believe that the Almighty has called us. Christians in Muslim and Hindu areas of the world can have a horrendous time. Those in Eritrea can be piled into steel shipping containers. Some in North Korea have been treated with unimaginable evil. But Christ has chosen them and they know there is only one way to salvation.

I’ve noticed it time and again – I’m the last to post a comment on a thread, and it got me thinking: does a thread have a natural life and am I too much of a newbie to realise when it is – or do I have the gift of killing a thread?

Doo Doo Doo Do Dodoo Doodoo Doodoo…

(Theme tune to ‘Sex & the City’)

@Stewart 5.32pm. I’m not sure, Stewart, whether Jesus said that his way was the only way to heaven (I think the distinction that Kant made between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’, is a very useful one). If, as Jesus preached, God is all-loving, how could He (God) deny entry to heaven to non-Christians who are so through no fault of their own (among those, of course, the millions who had lived and died, BC). Such a God would contradict His own nature.

The question can, of course, be asked of every religion that claims exclusivity but I can’t think of another major religion the God of which is all-loving.

@Steve Jones
If we’re being empirical and positivist (i.e. materialistic) and discounting teleology as we must if everything is action and reaction (cause and effect) then there is no ought there is simply producing offspring (though these needn’t be yours directly, you may just be a helper).

In that scenario Societies that survive are ipso facto “good”, irrespective of your or my moral/ethical codes and our beliefs about their actions.
They produce enough children to perpetuate themselves and fend of rival societies.

Then the laws (which should in stable societies) reflect the underlying social codes will reinforce those social codes, sometimes expanding them to the detriment of society.
Change can come over time but should be a slowish change without major disruption to the core society (banning slavery didn’t cause a major disruption to the British Empire apart from a few slavers, in fact it gave the Empire a justification for other intrusions; it caused a larger problem for the USAs slavers when they eventually banned it), otherwise it becomes revolution or a civil war.

When the laws of the society are at odds with the social rules that formed the society then the society starts to die (civilisation falls) i.e. Western Roman Empire, Abasayyid Caliphate etc.

It all becomes relative and survival = good
~~~~~~~~~~~~

The main problem with empiricism as a rule for producing codes of conduct is that there are many roads twixt A and B to arrive at a solution to a “desired” end.

Let’s say we have lots of homeless children on the streets of a major conurbation. This may be seen as bad (offends the eyes of the tourists, so reduces the tourism trade or we may find it offends or morals to know that we’ve allowed it to happen). What to do?

There are many solutions to this unsightly problem.

1) Take them into a warm and loving environment, educate them, help them become part of the main society.
2) Shoot them and dispose of the bodies on land fill sites
3) Sell them as chattle to estates a long way from the conurbation.

1) Very expensive
2) Cheapest solution
3) Might make a profit

Why this example? You may think it extreme, ask the street children of Brazil which options the goverment/police chose.
The Catholic church chose option 1.

Absolute morality has its place in helping us stand against social evil (what is bad for the long term good of society) and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don’t decry empiricism, I’m just pointing out that it isn’t the be all and end all.

Personally, I see decay in the UK and it is because the laws don’t reflect the social rules that formed our society.

@Stewart Cowan
I realise that you had your tongue firmly in your cheek when you suggested that Universities lower their standards; but as I sometimes have to manage graduate engineers I’ld rather they had decent training. If the UK lowers (perhaps that should be further lowers as the CVs are often very badly written and formatted) its standards it’ll simply help destroy the good reputation of UK scientists and engineers established by our forebears worldwide.

@ Jay
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
:::
The Almighty is indeed a God of love, but also a God of justice. He gave us his Son to defeat death and Hell and deal with sin (which separates us from a righteous Father), but we have to repent. Unrepentant sinners, therefore, who reject Christ must face the wrath to come as their sins have not been washed away by the Blood shed for sinners.

@Stewart 8.08 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.””

Stewart, that passage does not unequivocally lend itself to your conclusion; it could be argued that Jesus refers to himself here as the Christ and, as such, is an archetype: he exemplifies a fully-developed spirituality which underpins his ministry and sacrifice. Such an archetype is found in at least one other religion: Mayahana Buddhism has a similar tradition of vicarious salvation by way of the Bodhisattva. Interestingly, Buddhism has no concept of the kind of anthropomorphic God we find in Christianity…

I’m afraid I don’t recognise the God of the NT as a God of Justice in the sense that He sets out to punish the innocently or wilfully ignorant. Such a trait is completely incompatible with the all-loving and forgiving God so radically described by Jesus.

Your interpretation of God’s nature and Jesus’ message still doesn’t address the issue of the fate of souls whose lives pre-dated that of Jesus.

@Jay
Christ makes it clear and the apostles make it clear that He is the only way to salvation – He defeated death and hell, not some Buddhist or Muhammad or anyone else. Nobody but Christ died for the sins of the world.
:::
When you say, “He sets out to punish the innocently or wilfully ignorant.” I think the Bible says it better that God chastises those that He loves. I’ve been chastised a lot, but I have also sinned a lot. Remember that the Bible warns of the penalty for rejecting Christ – cast out for all eternity.
:::
As for your final question. All I can say is that the Shepherd knows his sheep.