Having a humanitarian love for someone does not exclude recognizing that person's faults or guilt. Take my brother-in-law (please take him! ta-doosh ) for example. I love him as a person, but because of his drug-induced beating of his step-son, he deserves conviction, jail time, and psychiatric treatment.
Except this is not relevant to your god, because he is not a human and is therefore not capable of humanitarian love. No matter how you look at it, your god is infinitely superior to any human, and therefore cannot possibly love any human in any meaningful sense. It would be like you saying that you love every cell in your body, or every molecule of food that you digest, in an intensely personal way - and that's simply not possible.
No, in order for humanitarian love to exist, you have to view someone as a person, not simply an object, so that you care about their welfare. So you might feel that it's best for your brother's welfare that he gets psychiatric treatment, but that wouldn't extend to torturing him. And your god simply doesn't care. Your god only cares about whether people worship him, not about what's best for them.
By being willing to accept that the fate your god decrees for those who don't believe in him is just, you are contradicting any claim of humanitarian love for them. You're essentially saying that you don't care that this fate is completely unconcerned with their actual welfare. Instead, you are acquiescing to your god's decree and trying to intimidate other people into acquiescing to it as well. Like it or not, having humanitarian love for someone means that you're willing to stand against people who don't have their interests at heart, and you've proven that you aren't, at least when it comes to your god's desires.