The Origin of Good and Evil

[Corvus]

Clue seems to imply in her topic in the Evolution vs Creationism forum that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. One thing I have to bring here to challenge is the assertion that sin was introduced into the world through a first "original sin", brought about by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But don't the words "knowledge of good and evil" imply that good and evil already exist, and thus sin - but Adam and Eve are ignorant of it? If so, doesn't that also imply ignorance of God's law is an excuse?

Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?

[otseng]

But don't the words "knowledge of good and evil" imply that good and evil already exist, and thus sin - but Adam and Eve are ignorant of it?

Yes, evil already existed. The devil (serpent) existed before Adam sinned. However, humanity (and the world) was perfect before Adam sinned. Humanity was only cursed when they broke God's commandment (not to eat from the tree). The world was not cursed because evil had already existed.

If so, doesn't that also imply ignorance of God's law is an excuse?

I don't see how it implies that. Adam was only held responsible for what God specifically told him not to do.

Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?

If my son robs a bank, would I be the origin of the bank being robbed? In a technical sense, yes, since I brought my son into the world. But, realistically, no, since my son was the one to decided to rob the bank, not me. I would not go to jail since I was not directly involved in the robbery.

When God created all of us (and also the angelic world), we were given free choice. It is this free choice that allows "evil" and "sin" to come into existence.

[Corvus]

But don't the words "knowledge of good and evil" imply that good and evil already exist, and thus sin - but Adam and Eve are ignorant of it?

Yes, evil already existed. The devil (serpent) existed before Adam sinned. However, humanity (and the world) was perfect before Adam sinned. Humanity was only cursed when they broke God's commandment (not to eat from the tree).

But how could that be? A sin is still a sin, even if the sinner has no knowledge they are perpetrating a sin. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they percieved they were not modestly attired, so they covered their nakedness. Does that mean immodesty was permissible before they knew it was wrong?

If Adam and Eve murdered each other before the fall, would it also be excusable because they couldn't discern good and evil?

The world was not cursed because evil had already existed.

You said earlier that the world was perfect. Does that mean God's idea of perfection is a world where evil existed in the world from the start?

[otseng]

Clue seems to imply in her topic in the Evolution vs Creationism forum that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.

I just want to make a little comment on this. Being a Christian is simply one who has a relationship with God through faith alone in Jesus Christ. One can believe in a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and still be a Christian. I prefer a more literal reading of it. However, I also believe that there can be symbolic meanings behind the literal readings.

Yes, evil already existed. The devil (serpent) existed before Adam sinned. However, humanity (and the world) was perfect before Adam sinned. Humanity was only cursed when they broke God's commandment (not to eat from the tree).

But how could that be? A sin is still a sin, even if the sinner has no knowledge they are perpetrating a sin.

I define sin as simply breaking God's commandments. The things that God didn't prohibit, it wouldn't be considered a sin.

When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they percieved they were not modestly attired, so they covered their nakedness. Does that mean immodesty was permissible before they knew it was wrong?

I don't think it was really immodestly, but innocence. They didn't have a sinful nature, so they didn't have impure thoughts. When they sinned, then they had a sinful nature and lost their innocence.

For example, a child can go running around naked and nobody thinks much of it. If the child sees another naked child, he won't think much of it either. It's not that they don't know about modesty, but they are innocent.

If Adam and Eve murdered each other before the fall, would it also be excusable because they couldn't discern good and evil?

Actually, I don't even know if it was theoretically possible for them to murder each other. God said that after they ate from the tree, they would die. So, it implies that they would never die if they never ate from the tree.

You said earlier that the world was perfect. Does that mean God's idea of perfection is a world where evil existed in the world from the start?

There exists a spiritual realm that is outside of our physical realm. That is where evil originated.

Satan was originally called Lucifer. He was one of the chief angels. He rebelled against God and wanted to be in the position of God. This rebellion was the origin of evil.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

[Corvus]

Clue seems to imply in her topic in the Evolution vs Creationism forum that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.

I just want to make a little comment on this. Being a Christian is simply one who has a relationship with God through faith alone in Jesus Christ. One can believe in a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and still be a Christian. I prefer a more literal reading of it. However, I also believe that there can be symbolic meanings behind the literal readings.

Noted. I actually don't disagree with you - I am only quoting Clue.

Yes, evil already existed. The devil (serpent) existed before Adam sinned. However, humanity (and the world) was perfect before Adam sinned. Humanity was only cursed when they broke God's commandment (not to eat from the tree).

But how could that be? A sin is still a sin, even if the sinner has no knowledge they are perpetrating a sin.

I define sin as simply breaking God's commandments. The things that God didn't prohibit, it wouldn't be considered a sin.

Then, can I ask if good is going with God's laws, and evil going against them? This is of special concern. Indeed, I may even create a topic asking members to define good and evil, since I do not believe in its existence other than subjective right and wrongs.

When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they percieved they were not modestly attired, so they covered their nakedness. Does that mean immodesty was permissible before they knew it was wrong?

I don't think it was really immodestly, but innocence. They didn't have a sinful nature, so they didn't have impure thoughts. When they sinned, then they had a sinful nature and lost their innocence.

For example, a child can go running around naked and nobody thinks much of it. If the child sees another naked child, he won't think much of it either. It's not that they don't know about modesty, but they are innocent.

Why can the child walk around naked in innocence although tainted by original sin? Is it a birthright they come into later in life?

If Adam and Eve murdered each other before the fall, would it also be excusable because they couldn't discern good and evil?

Actually, I don't even know if it was theoretically possible for them to murder each other. God said that after they ate from the tree, they would die. So, it implies that they would never die if they never ate from the tree.

But you have stated earlier that you believe it was a spiritual, not a phyisical, death. Perhaps there is another passage that deals with death that I'm not familiar with.

Anyway, what I'm implying is that if Adam and Eve harmed each other in some way - difficult to do in a utopia with no private property and no chance of being wounded or killed - would it still be wrong? The answer seems to be no, since God has not explicitly forbid it.

You said earlier that the world was perfect. Does that mean God's idea of perfection is a world where evil existed in the world from the start?

There exists a spiritual realm that is outside of our physical realm. That is where evil originated.

Satan was originally called Lucifer. He was one of the chief angels. He rebelled against God and wanted to be in the position of God. This rebellion was the origin of evil.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

I see.

I have posted a topic in the Right and Wrong forum on universal good and evil.

[Shild]

In considering the origin of good an evil, one must first decide exactly why the good things we observe are good and the evil things evil.

The going assumption here seems to be that God was sitting around before Creation and arbitrarily said, "Okay, I guess X will be evil and Y will be good." In other words, God's commands are good and anything which contradicts them is evil.

However, it is my position that good and evil go beyond that. You see, according to the Bible, God is incapable of sin. This means that God has a nature, and that He cannot go against it.

Therefore, evil is defined as that which is not in keeping with God's nature. Good is that which coincides with God's nature. God's commandments are descriptions of ways in which human nature can most closely mirror the Divine Nature.

I am not saying that God does not sin because He chooses not to, or because there is some rule which God cannot break. The reason is because sin is defined by its Godlessness.

Suppose there is a dark corner in a room. If you shine a light in the area, it is no longer dark. The light cannot be dark because darkness is by definition the lack of light.

The result of this is that there is no "Origin of Good and Evil." Rather, these are both timeless concepts whose existence depends on God, not on humanity.

Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?

The concept of light requires a theoretical concept of darkness. The concept of matter requires a theoretical concept of vacuum. The concept of God requires a theoretical concept of evil.

If you have a light source in a box, then there is no darkness in the box. Through some other stuff in there, and shadows are cast. Darkness now exists in the box. Did the light cause the darkness? No, the concept of light caused the theoretical concept of darkness, and the presence of other items in the box caused the presence of darkness.

My assertion: God's existence required the theoretical concept of Godlessness (evil), and the presence of free will in the universe resulted in the actual possibility of evil.

In a sense, God did cause evil, but God is not responsible for the presence of evil. In other words, neither the presence of evil, nor the evil actions of some people, can reasonably called God's fault.

[Corvus]

However, it is my position that good and evil go beyond that. You see, according to the Bible, God is incapable of sin. This means that God has a nature, and that He cannot go against it.

But sin is usually defined as something that God has ruled on, and usually requires some sort of temporal body because they frequently refer to actions. Even then, God is still capable of doing things we clearly view as wrong. Jesus was pacifist, but God did an awful lot of smiting. He was vengeful and wrathful. Is it his nature to be, and should we imitate that nature? In the OT, obedience to God is frequently stressed above what we feel is right. The best example is when Abraham brought his son to be sacrificed and God said, "Oh, hey, just kidding! I was testing you." I can't help but feel that if God was omniscient a test would not be necessary...

What exactly is God's nature? Can one describe it? Someone else has said that God's nature relies on some sort of principle of picturesque selfless love, but selfless love can only exist when the self is crippled or destroyed through the action. Ie, a sacrifice is needed otherwise the selfless love or act only ends in glorifying oneself and drawing attention to it. (See topic: The Reason Behind Good Deeds to debate the point). Every action has a motive and a motive is an extension of the ego. God, who, being perfect, is incapable of suffering and can make no personal sacrifices, should therefore also be incapable of selflessness.

f you have a light source in a box, then there is no darkness in the box. Through some other stuff in there, and shadows are cast. Darkness now exists in the box. Did the light cause the darkness? No, the concept of light caused the theoretical concept of darkness, and the presence of other items in the box caused the presence of darkness.

I see. The light requires a point of origin and the shadow does not. But in order for the light to exist, it must illumine something, especially since the our definition of light is actually conduct or nature and conduct cannot exist unless it is towards something. If God was completely alone in the universe, there would be no good or evil, correct? And possibly God would not exist either. God is absolutely dependent on our existence.

[Shild]

But sin is usually defined as something that God has ruled on, and usually requires some sort of temporal body because they frequently refer to actions.

God's laws were made for the use/benefit of humans, not God. These rules allow humans/humanity to become more Godly. Since they are specifically for humans, it is natural for them to assume the readers have a temporal body (though not all God's commands make this assumption).
God cannot lie (see Titus 1:2) because He is a God of Truth. Naturally, He instructs Humans not to lie (See Exodus 20:16) so that we, like God, can be truthful.

But what about stealing? God owns everything, so the fact that He never steals is a moot point. What does this have to do with God's nature?

God is a God of Rationality and Stability, not anarchy. If people did not value each others' rights to property, there would be anarchy, and the society would not be Godly. Furthermore, God is a God of Love and Respect. It is disrespectful and possibly even hateful to steal from someone. By respecting the rights of others to their own property, humans can be more Godly.

Even then, God is still capable of doing things we clearly view as wrong.

It is simplistic and manifestly incorrect to claim that the same rules apply to God as to humans, since (obviously) God is not a human. More on that below.

Jesus was pacifist

Um... no. Jesus was very aggressive in his ministry, particularly in regards to the Pharisees. He often called them "hypocrites," and asks them "have you not read" in reference to the Old Testament writings (a grievous insult; the Pharisees were the PhD's of their time in Old Testament literature). He even calls them "dogs" and "vipers." Not to mention the episode at the Temple when Jesus knocked over the money changers tables. He was not being a "pacifist" then. The burden of proof is with you to qualify this claim.

God did an awful lot of smiting.

Define "awful lot." Also, prove that God "smiting" (whatever that means) is a sin.

He was vengeful and wrathful. Is it his nature to be, and should we imitate that nature?

Your clear intent to evoke an emotional response with these unqualified and subjective terms notwithstanding, I will respond. God is neither "vengeful" nor unjustifiably "wrathful" in the Old Testament. Better terms would be Just and possessing Righteous Anger.

In the OT, obedience to God is frequently stressed above what we feel is right.

Prove it. One example does not mean "frequently."

The best example is when Abraham brought his son to be sacrificed and God said, "Oh, hey, just kidding! I was testing you." I can't help but feel that if God was omniscient a test would not be necessary...

This assumes the purpose of this event was for God to find out something he did not already know, specifically the depth of Abraham's faith. However, the passage itself indicates something quite different.

For example, when Abraham and Isaac are journeying to Moriah, they are accompanied by a servant (Addendum: they actually were accompanied by multiple servants. Sorry about that mistake.). As they near their destination, Abraham says to the servant,

Stay here with the donkey; the lad (Isaac) and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.

(Gen 22:5)

The "we" indicates that Abraham knew that both he and his son would return. Furthermore, the three Hebrew verbs indicate strong determination. An alternate translation could be "We are determined to go, we are determined to worship, we are determined to return."

Also, when Isaac asked Abraham where the lamb for offering was, Abraham replied,

My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.

And Abraham is exactly right.

You see, God, as a God of Purity, cannot tolerate any sin of any kind. Therefore, some form of sacrifice must be made to atone. It was Isaac's place to die (thus preventing the Hebrew nation from ever existing), but God provided a sacrifice in Isaac's place.

This Old Testament account is not in a vacuum. In the Judeo-Christian scenario, it makes perfect sense. Humans cannot be holy without sacrifice, but God desires union with humanity enough to provide the sacrifice himself. The ultimate sacrifice for all sin became Jesus.

Someone else has said that God's nature relies on some sort of principle of picturesque selfless love, but selfless love can only exist when the self is crippled or destroyed through the action. Ie, a sacrifice is needed otherwise the selfless love or act only ends in glorifying oneself and drawing attention to it. (See topic: The Reason Behind Good Deeds to debate the point). Every action has a motive and a motive is an extension of the ego. God, who, being perfect, is incapable of suffering and can make no personal sacrifices, should therefore also be incapable of selflessness.

Your refutation of "someone else" is not entirely convincing, but I am obviously not this "someone else," and I do not agree with "someone else's" argument (as you present it), and since this section has no bearing on my claims about the nature of God, I will leave it for "someone else" to answer.

But in order for the light to exist, it must illumine something, especially since the our definition of light is actually conduct or nature and conduct cannot exist unless it is towards something.

Here is what dictionary.com has to say about "light":

n.
Physics.
Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.

This was the definition I had in mind. Radiation does not have to "illumine something" to exist. Furthermore, while there were plenty of differing definitions of light given, I could find none claiming that light must "illumine" something to exist, or used the words "conduct" and "nature," or must be "towards something."

If God was completely alone in the universe, there would be no good or evil, correct?

Incorrect. "Good" is that which is like God, or in keeping with God's nature, therefore God is Good, therefore as long as God exists in any scenario, good also exists. Evil would not be present, but the concept of evil would exist, just as the existence of matter implies the concept of vacuum, even if a true vacuum does not really exist.

And possibly God would not exist either.

This statement does not follow logically from the previous ones. In fact, it flatly contradicts your earlier statement "God was completely alone..." How can something which does not exist be described as "alone"?

God is absolutely dependent on our existence.

This does not even follow logically from the statement before it, because of your use of the word "possibly."

Now, I will return to an earlier statement you made:

Even then, God is still capable of doing things we clearly view as wrong.

Remember that God is not a human and, as God, naturally has more rights/authority than any human.

One might say it is wrong for God to kill anyone, but remember that God created life, so all life is God's property. Therefore, God has the right to do anything He decides is best with any human life.

Also remember that all death comes from God. Condemning any act of God that involves taking a human life specifically because a human life is taken is the same thing as arguing that all humans should be immortal.

[Corvus]

Jesus was pacifist

Um... no. Jesus was very aggressive in his ministry, particularly in regards to the Pharisees. He often called them "hypocrites," and asks them "have you not read" in reference to the Old Testament writings (a grievous insult; the Pharisees were the PhD's of their time in Old Testament literature). He even calls them "dogs" and "vipers." Not to mention the episode at the Temple when Jesus knocked over the money changers tables. He was not being a "pacifist" then. The burden of proof is with you to qualify this claim.

He may have been given to aggression, but not physical harm directly against any one person. He did not kill or harm a single person, as far as I remember.

God did an awful lot of smiting.

Define "awful lot." Also, prove that God "smiting" (whatever that means) is a sin.

I never said it was, I was simply pointing out that God can kill sinners with impunity, thus we should too.

He was vengeful and wrathful. Is it his nature to be, and should we imitate that nature?

Your clear intent to evoke an emotional response with these unqualified and subjective terms notwithstanding, I will respond. God is neither "vengeful" nor unjustifiably "wrathful" in the Old Testament. Better terms would be Just and possessing Righteous Anger.

"Righteous anger" is still wrath, (dictionary.com even describes wrath as "divine retribution), and they are only better terms to you because you believe in God and do not question his goodness. Your terms are no less subjective than mine.

Furthermore, I am not trying to provoke an emotional response, since it does not help my argument. I am trying to find out what exactly God's nature is. If you could clearly outline what qualities make up God's nature, (and you have supplied one, "Truth", and another, "righteous anger"), then it would make it easier for me.

I see that If God's nature is defined as good as an absolute, we should not try to meet it completely because God is more capable of this good than us. For example, righteous anger seems to be one aspect of God's nature that would be frowned upon amongst men.

In the OT, obedience to God is frequently stressed above what we feel is right.

Prove it. One example does not mean "frequently."
[/quote]

My memory fails me at this moment in time, but note I am not saying "what we feel" is right due to any frivolity on my part.

But in order for the light to exist, it must illumine something, especially since the our definition of light is actually conduct or nature and conduct cannot exist unless it is towards something.

Here is what dictionary.com has to say about "light":

n.
Physics.
Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.

This was the definition I had in mind. Radiation does not have to "illumine something" to exist.

[/quote]

If a tree falls in the woods when there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? My view is no, since no one is around to define what exactly is sound, and without outside observation, any event is meaningless. If we did not exist, neither would the concept of light, because concepts are ideals and ideals only exist in the mind - the human mind - and the same goes for what we consider reality. Who thinks of the concept of evil if only good exists? God?

It might explain things to know that I am a proponent of Schopenhauer's concept that the world is the idea that we have of it, and without the idea, it would be meaningless.

Also note the Quantum Physics theory of Schroedinger's Cat, concerning that all things exist in possibility and possibility alone until they are observed.

Furthermore, while there were plenty of differing definitions of light given, I could find none claiming that light must "illumine" something to exist, or used the words "conduct" and "nature," or must be "towards something."

You have stated that God's nature is the definition of Goodness and you have metaphorised this goodness as "light". This means the light is God's nature. If God's nature illumines nothing, his Goodness cannot exist because it is defined by his action. If you always existed within a vacuum, incapable of acting, you would be incapable of defining yourself because ourselves are defined through our interactions. The goodness you believe yourself to possess would then exist only as a concept and in relation to nothing. Without context, it would not exist literally.


As you stated;

The concept of light requires a theoretical concept of darkness. The concept of matter requires a theoretical concept of vacuum. The concept of God requires a theoretical concept of evil.

Imagine that there is a room where there is always light and no darkness. If no one lived in this room, Schroedinger would say the light only exists in possibility, not in reality. If you lived inside this room, you would be unable to define light, in concept or in reality, since there is no shadow. If the concept is undefined, does it really exist? If no one is capable of knowing light, then does the light exist in reality?

This statement does not follow logically from the previous ones. In fact, it flatly contradicts your earlier statement "God was completely alone..." How can something which does not exist be described as "alone"?

The same way if Jim did not exist Jim would know it.

If you lived in a land where everything was always wet, the concept of wet would not have a meaning because there would be nothing in which to contrast it to. Everything would be mundane. Since it is through ideals and concepts that the world is given definition by us, omnipresent goodness would have no goodness in reality if that goodness was not observable. If it had no context, and if that goodness did not occur in relation to other creatures, the goodness has no meaning. It is through us that the subject of goodness is given meaning and clarity. And since God is defined as goodness incarnate, if the goodness did not exist, God would not exist.

Remember that God is not a human and, as God, naturally has more rights/authority than any human.

But if God is the definition of good, or good the definition of God, that authority is a component of that nature, and something we should aspire to, is it not? God is a god of truth, and one of authority, but that authority and those rights are not what a Christian is allowed to aspire to?

One might say it is wrong for God to kill anyone, but remember that God created life, so all life is God's property. Therefore, God has the right to do anything He decides is best with any human life.

Is creation also a quality of God's nature, being a Creator?

Also remember that all death comes from God. Condemning any act of God that involves taking a human life specifically because a human life is taken is the same thing as arguing that all humans should be immortal.

You may wish to go back and read what I've written whenever judging God.

Even then, God is still capable of doing things we clearly view as wrong.

I never stated those actions are wrong. But God is not a God of relativism, but of absolutes. If God is the absolute of Good, every action he does is perfect, no matter who does it. By this imitation of God's perfect nature, we too achieve perfection, do we not? Otherwise, humans belong to a different standard than God, and that means God is not the absolute standard.



If any of this seems confused, my father has bronchitis and has been coughing his lungs up for two nights straight. Without sleep, I'm incapable of my usual genius.

[Shild]

He may have been given to aggression, but not physical harm directly against any one person. He did not kill or harm a single person, as far as I remember.

I meant that Jesus was not opposed to war and violence in general, He was just a reasonable and peaceful individual. However, this has nothing to do with the origin of good and evil, so on to the next point.

"Righteous anger" is still wrath, (dictionary.com even describes wrath as "divine retribution)

Hence my use of the word "unjustifiably."

If a tree falls in the woods when there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? My view is no, since no one is around to define what exactly is sound, and without outside observation, any event is meaningless. If we did not exist, neither would the concept of light, because concepts are ideals and ideals only exist in the mind - the human mind - and the same goes for what we consider reality.

This is a logical, though somewhat extreme, point of view. However, I do not agree that concepts can only exist in the "human" mind. I see no reason that any non-human intelligent entity cannot be counted as an observer. Therefore, God, as an intelligent entity, can observe things and define them. Furthermore, since God is omniscient and omnipresent, no tree can truly fall so that "no one [is] around to hear it." That is, iff (note the intentional double f) God exists.

Who thinks of the concept of evil if only good exists? God?

Bingo.

Imagine that there is a room where there is always light and no darkness. If no one lived in this room, Schroedinger would say the light only exists in possibility, not in reality. If you lived inside this room, you would be unable to define light, in concept or in reality, since there is no shadow. If the concept is undefined, does it really exist? If no one is capable of knowing light, then does the light exist in reality?

If you lived in a land where everything was always wet, the concept of wet would not have a meaning because there would be nothing in which to contrast it to. Everything would be mundane.

In the world we do live in, everything is composed of matter. Furthermore, matter is everywhere; no true vacuum exists. Yet matter is defined and it does exist. A true vacuum does not exist in this universe (or at least, has never been observed by humans) but the concept of a vacuum is defined and understood by us. This is because we humans know that when you have a basic concept X, there is implied a concept Y which is the lack or opposite of X.

God is defined as goodness incarnate, if the goodness did not exist, God would not exist.

Who defines God as "goodness incarnate?" Not me. For our purposes, good is a descriptive term for something which is similar to God. Therefore God is good, but good is most certainly not God.

was simply pointing out that God can kill sinners with impunity, thus we should too.

I am confused by this statement. God "kills" everyone, after all.

Is creation also a quality of God's nature, being a Creator

In my opinion, God is a God of Control, not just creation. God controls what exists and what does not in His creation, and He controls what lives and what dies.

More importantly, death is not the opposite of creation. According to the Christian point of view, both body and soul still exist after death.

But if God is the definition of good, or good the definition of God, that authority is a component of that nature, and something we should aspire to, is it not? God is a god of truth, and one of authority, but that authority and those rights are not what a Christian is allowed to aspire to?

Authority is a neutral concept in terms of good and evil. If you say a person has authority, this does not mean the person is Godly or evil. The fact that God has authority above all creation is a result of the fact that God is the Creator.

For example, I am writing this post, therefore I have authority over it. I have authority over which words are in the post and which are not. I can delete or modify any world whenever I wish. My authority over this post is a result of my role as creator of the post.

However, it is good to imitate God when in a position of authority. For example, if I were to fill this post with meaningless collections of letters, I would not be acting like the very rational God who created this well-ordered and organised universe we live in.

Furthermore, if I am a father, it is good for me to love my children, to instruct them in laws and rules, and to punish their disobedience justly, as God does for humanity.

God's model of justice as recorded in the Old Testament is a very important basic guide for leaders everywhere. When humans are doing something which displeases God, He first instructs them to discontinue and warns them of possible punishment. If they repent (a la Nineveh), they are not punished. However, if they disregard His warnings, they are punished (this happens several times to the Israelites). If their transgressions are persistent and grievous enough, they may even be eliminated (as with the Amelekites). It is based on the Old Testament examples that I described God as "Just" in my previous post.

Humans should not do exactly what God does precisely because humans are not gods. Doing something that is in keeping with God's nature does not mean becoming God.

Another consideration is that, in some ways, humans can not imitate God. For example, humans are told to obey and worship God, even though God never obeys or worships anything. This aspect has the purpose of helping people focus on God and His laws, thus the people and their society can become more Godly.

If you could clearly outline what qualities make up God's nature, (and you have supplied one, "Truth", and another, "righteous anger"), then it would make it easier for me.

Don't forget these:

God is a God of Rationality and Stability, not anarchy.

God is a God of Love and Respect.

Just and possessing Righteous Anger.

God, as a God of Purity,

God is Good,

I do have one more scripture-attested description: Patience.

Every description I have provided is based on my readings of the Bible. I could try to sum it up for you, but I know that I could never do the Bible justice, especially in such a short post. If you want a truly full and accurate picture of God's nature, the Bible is the perfect place to look. My list is by no means complete, but I hope you get the idea, or at least feel encourage to examine the Bible for a picture of God's nature.

For example, righteous anger seems to be one aspect of God's nature that would be frowned upon amongst men.

I do not agree with this. If I see someone get hurt without good reason, the person hurt and I will, normally, become angry. Our anger, because it is justified, can be described as righteous.

I think it is safe to say that most people would agree that anger is sometimes justified.

I see that If God's nature is defined as good as an absolute, we should not try to meet it completely because God is more capable of this good than us.

God is definitely more capable, but this does not mean humans should throw the laws of Christianity out the window. My point is that humans should try to be as good/Godly as they can be, not as good/Godly as God is.