Are Gods Judgments righteous?

And yet you did.

A strong tree is rooted deep, if the roots run shallow, the tree is easily uprooted. Toppling trees do not a vibrant woodland make.

A farmer who sews seed in a difficult season may be considered to wasting his time, can his works be appraised before the harvest?

Smiley,
Philosopholising

How about...
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
...or...
Garbage in - garbage out.

If "God" is, God doesn't judge. Judgements are from the realm of those who do not know what is or is not. That which is shall not be judged.

Indeed but one mans garbage is another mans treasure.

What term would you use for the assessment of ones worth according to ones deeds, with the added modifier of motive and cause? perhaps we are using anthropomorphised terms for a far more complicated process but is it really so far removed from a judgement? if this god can be reasoned with, as Moses did on Mount Sinai, Is there not still a degree of appraisal prior to action?

Judgement, discernment, preference, whatever you wish to call it is spread throughout reality. A quark judges what other quark is best to join itself to, atoms do the same to make molecules, computers sort their way through logic trees based on their program's goal and people make thousands of judgements everyday if they want to keep living. Without judgement, nothing exists. So it should come as no surprise that God would judge.

But I'd love to see a copy of the book you get that from.

Reality is TRUTH not TIME unfolding.
And you should well know Truth cannot be changed.
By the way give Parmenides more credit.
That which is done and true and real cannot and shall not move.
The path, REASON, is not of choice but of TRUTH ! It IS before you perceive it unfolding through time.
Sorry for the Metaphysical mystical mini lecture there. But this is what I do best. Not expecting that you get any of it at all... But its thrown out into the wild...It might echo to someone.
(and no this is not the CORRESPONDING theory of Truth, here the word has a more concealed and nuanced meaning)

I can hear Woody Allen ....

Woody Allen is an expert in absurdism I can see how you can relate to that.

PS - Carrying yourself on the back of absurdism and appealing to ingnoramus while parodying and mocking human behaviour is a very convenient way of leading one's life. Its the easy path for lazy intellectuals. I have done it 20 years ago so I know how its works. Everyone pats you in the back n calls you a sage.

Infinitely harder is to get out of risk free, say nothing comfort zone, take up an unfashionable position and get all the burden of social ridicule and mockery, and keep arguing. It takes a big pair and much appreciation for the job to be that person.

Nah....I don't think it's too difficult to become an incoherent, obstinate old fogey! You surely must know one or two !

You see Fresco you are the incoherent fogey person around.
If not bare with me and answer straight forward simple questions about your stance on some matters will ya ?
For instance you have shown earlier some disdain for theism but such position don't goes along well with your stance on mind does it ?

1 - Do you Believe in Mind ?
2 - Do you think Mind makes the world or creates the world such that there is no world without the intervention of mind ?
3 - If you do believe minds take priority in relation to the world why not make the jump to solipsism and believe there is only one mind ? Its a natural deductive step from there, is it not ? How do you know I am not a figment of your imagination ? Why not use Occam Razor here ?
4 - If all of the above mention points that retract your view on these matters for as long I have seen you post on A2K how come you don't believe in a God, eh ? ...whatever God you want to call it is of no importance...

After all a Mind of all minds that creates the world and commands it seems to have all the attributes of a Godly figure...

...you see old chap you are not interested in coherence from the get go...you just mumbo jumbo the same old thing ingrained in your philosophical cult sec without even entertaining the consequences that such babbling implies...be in the least self consistent. Assume solipsism once and for all and conclude mind was not created from any world so mind is eternal and all powerful...you are a freaking Christian without having the discernment and presence of spirit to notice it !

See if you understand this:
The member of the committee nominated to participate in conversation with you, named 'fresco', is authorized to say that the committee considers all 'words' only have significance/meaning according to the contexts of their usage. For example, the word 'mind' as a 'controlling agent in events' only has significance in the social contexts in which the terms, 'event', 'agent' and 'control' are agreed. The only way such agreement is shown is by 'mutual satisfaction of the parties about what happens next' or in more general terms...'social coherence securing survival of the group or species'. In short, humans as a species can be likened to 'clever ants' in extensive hives, sending and receiving signals which service their co-operative behaviour. Unlike ants, the biologically 'independent' units of our species can be members of different hives, each with their own significance with respect the usage the communication units/words. Obviously,there can be no absolutes regarding 'words'. As one father figure in linguistics put it, ' the units of sound signify nothing but otherness'. So to talk about 'truth' as you do as a 'time independent absolute' is merely begging the question whether such a 'God's Eye' position is possible for an ant. Such 'truth' has currency only amongst those 'religious ants' who engage in joint religious practices/dialogue to ameliorate the potential insignifance of their individual existence, as suggested by their recognition of conflicting hive memberships.
.

This argument is not self consistent. You undermine all you just asserted as "words operating in context". You shot back your own foot.
Understand THAT, please !!!
The only pragmatic honest position you could have is to be mute.
And yet every moment of experiencing is a true actual moment of experiencing. Including every thought, every illusion, every dream, and every act you take. You unfold TRUTH in each second of your life.
More, once and for all get this right, you cant have a pure relative system without foundation. Such system asserts nothing, it speaks nothing, it entails nothing ! Now I honestly would love to enter that thick mind of yours in order to undertand WHY you fail to grasp this.

In a pure relative irrational system, if one can even dare to call it a system, there is no "proximity of context". There is no closer or further away languaging. Any distance between agents, is an infinite irrational distance.
Let me guess, this is to far fetched for your simpleton mind to grasp.
Let me help you, think of the relation between real irrational numbers...each has a potential infinity between whatever you want next to it. Its uncountable. That is the sort of messed up **** you appeal to without noticing it.

Your pragmatist approach is lazy, it avoids, ditches, shakes off, an honest take on the problem. Its a confortable position to be in. Get out of it. You playing blindly with a monster.

If you are a true Christian my brother you would forget about the Old Testament's interpretation of God and follow the true interpretation of God from Lord Jesus, like he said "No one comes to God the Father except through me" Any other interpretation of God and his judgement should now be obselete.
Anyone can say "I think this is what God said and expects." The Old Testament is no exception.
As a Christian I think there is only one true interpretation of God and his judgement, and that's from Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other...

If you are to follow someone that far, the least you could do is meet him in person first.

His moral spirit and character is more than enough for me, or in a less metaphorical way let's just say "His concept"