Are Gods Judgments righteous?

Whether you know it or not, this discussion also assumes a special covenant between the god and the Jews. Of course, all manner of "christian" confessions have alleged the transference of that covenant to themselves, because of their putative righteousness. Whatever one's feelings about that, to reconcile your judgmental god with regard to zapping whole nations, you implicitly accept the concept of the covenant. Even the Jews got screwed because that vicious god of theirs alleged that they had been unrighteous, which was really unacceptable in god's best buddies.

God if there is one, is Truth. Reality cannot be judged.
(Its not like you can go back and undo it.)

Your problem rests on the axiom that 'the biblical God exists' and the subsequent assumption that such a 'God' is a single entity. If you remove the first axiom and substitute it with 'God is an anthropomorphic entity conceived in the image of Man', then the recognition that individuals have different personality modes will solve the problem. Otherwise you are stuck with 'God moves in mysterious ways' which equates to 'don't bother trying to understand' !

She stated her assumption. Given that, my guess is that God's judgments are indeed righteous. Isn't that the simple nature of the god of the bible?

I'm taking that assumption as a hypothetical into which I don't buy, which has little to do with the question.

Its not like your own frame of reference about mind and consciousness being something "special" almost magical, don't push you to a set of beliefs that might entail a mind of all minds...thankfully my own "philosophy" is more self consistent then yours Fresco.

Woof! Woof!
Surely you have better things to do than snapping at my heels !

If they are to be reconciled, one has to have some concept of what God's objective with man is. Put another way, does the end justify the means? It simply is not possible to even begin that effort without knowing the end.

The wonder to me is that so little effort is made to quantify what that objective is by the people who should be most interested.

I suspect you know more world history than I do, but my working assumption is that the Jews were simply that group of people who sensed and recognized the reality of God, as opposed to the pantheon of gods cooked up by society or no God at all.

I don't even know the origin of the term 'Jews' but as far as I know, the only thing that made them 'the chosen ones' and the recipient of the covenant was their recognition of God. So it should not be surprising that 'the Gentiles' should be included when they did the same.

On the contrary my friend, The covenant Set speaks of was a supposed contract between God and the nation of Israel, a nation selected by God to provide the messiah or promised seed according to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants (amongst others). (Most of the Hebrew Scriptures are a record of Gods covenants and dealings with his people)

The origin of the term Jew is linked to the tribe of Judah, it is a name essentially establishing lineage to the Abrahamic line.
Christians follow the understanding that Jesus life, ministry and subsequent death fulfilled Gods covenant with his physical nation as the Messiah was delivered, this covenant would be replaced by a covenant that opened up Gods favourable relationship to people of all nations tribes and tongues. The Jews however did not believe that Jesus met the criteria for the messiah that they had awaited, which is the lynchpin difference between their faith, and the Christian one.

I have been wrong many a time my friend, and so I apologise to anyone whose position of faith I have butchered,

My apologies Fresco, My intentions with regard to the Axiom was merely a poor attempt to avoid diverting discussion away from the principle idea, I find discussions in this forum often drift into certain key religious debates such as "does God exist" "where is the proof for your invisible friend in the sky" and why take the bible so literally". What I am trying to encourage is a healthy discussion regarding the putative God as recorded in scripture, and the way in which he has dealt with mankind. Whether one discusses it hypothetically, as with a fictional character in a storybook, or as a real intelligent being, is down to the reader.

Examples of judgments I could propose for discussion would be for instance amongst others, the Edenic judgment, the Antediluvian Judgment, The 10 Plagues and Destruction of Jerusalem

The pathological need for some like Fresco to fire off a salvo of 'There is no God!' into discussions like this is as revealing as it is entertaining. If I needed proof that God stirs a response in the minds of humans, even in those who disavow any such influence, those reflexive outbursts would be sufficient.

If they really had no doubts about their disbelief, their response to these discussions would be the same as mine to the discussions about extraterrestrials secretly ruling the planet. There is absolutely no need or use in telling them otherwise. And surely our delusions about God are more far fetched than aliens existing.

Sorry about the digression and thanks for the background on the Jews. Will research that a bit and get back to the subject of God's judgements.

It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where his judgements would not be just based on my own impression of what his objective is. Death is easily excused given that without his having given you life, you would never have had the opportunity to experience life of any kind or duration.

The only exception would be the 'everlasting torture in hell' scenario, which if it were true would justify the charge of 'unjust'.

I assure you I have no 'pathological need' to fire off 'salvo's' regarding 'the existence of God'. Indeed unlike other atheists, I have asserted that 'God does exist' for believers. The fact that I see the nature of that 'existence' as a psychological crutch largely indicates my general attitude to the word 'existence' rather than my attitude to 'believers' per se. If you interpret my neo-pragmatist stance as 'an attack', then I suggest that your problem lies in your own insecurity with your belief system.

aaah, Neo-pragmatist...I love the wording...so sophisticated Fresco.
One has to wonder what pragmatism ACTUALLY entails...yeah things work out. They fit easily without much thinking about foundations ! Also true they have limited extension and operative context as any system has. The problem is Pragmatism intends to explain nothing so its pov is merely useful. It has nothing to say on "existence". Nor in favour nor against.

No apologies required I assure you. Attempted resolution of religious paradoxes is the raison d'etre of millions of so-called 'scholars of holy texts'. The fact that millions of others prefer to employ their intellect in more tangible problems perhaps with secular, rather than celestial 'payoffs', seems to say something about the term 'time-wasting'!

Woof, woof, woof....!

That is actually false...politics and universities being the best example...the idea the secular approaches to the world don't suffer from the same social gang bang waste of intellectual resources is plain wrong. People spend 90% of their energy and time fighting different groups of reference. Scholars at Universities are the worst. Nit picking idiots trying to make a living out of grammar disputes.

Yes I know you're an expert at barking no need for demos !

Oh I didn't interpret it as an attack at all. Those salvos are to defend what you term as your 'Neo-pragmatism'. Not that I would attack it; I mean - why?

Indeed, but why would anybody need to defend what amounts to 'common sense' ?