Statesboro, GA, USA
To me it is better to believe God shall practice what he preaches, inspires, and commands.
Your premise is correct Essorant ... namely that God's Character has to be at least as noble, as he commands ours to be. But your conclusion is problematic, I think. The Bible contains many instances where God commands us not to do something, which he himself must do. For example, Jesus says in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, lest you be judged". But this is a directive given from Heaven to those who dwell on the Earth. But if God were subject to the same, then how could it say "lest you be Judged"? Lest we be judged by whom? God, of course.
We have to ask is there any difference between the nature of God, and the nature of man, which would justify such a difference in expectations. Why would God be able to "judge" while we are forbidden to do so? The answer lies in the omniscience and omni-benevolence of God. We are imperfect. We don't see all the varied strands that lead to a person's actions, therefore we are great bunglers when we try to judge as God does. We also have the tendency to take delight in inflicting punishment on others. But the Bible says that God only punishes out of pure justice and benevolence. There is no alloy of petty or disproportionate passion, in the metal of his sword.
I've said all of that to establish the premise that there is a proper difference of standard (between God and us), based upon the nature and authority of God. Deity is not the same category as fallen humanity. But we are assured that this difference reflects not a deficiency of character in God, but a proper office. Men want to judge, because they want to be what they aren't. The authorities may drag me off the baseball field (kicking and screaming) because I'm not Chipper Jones, no matter what I say. And they should rightly take my bat away (I tend to get dangerous when delusional). But that doesn't mean that Chip doesn't get to bat either!
That brings us to the subject of Hell. Is consignment to hell by God, the same thing as a vindictive imperfect execution of rage by man? I don't think it is. We are given some clues to this, in the Bible ...
Is the wrath of God described in terms of human anger? Yes. The reason for this I think, is because the anthopomorphic principle arises out of necessity, because God has to speak to us in terms we can understand. We too hold the faculty of anger and indignation, albeit imperfectly. When God expresses his wrath, he wants us to relate it to our own wrath, so that we may understand the reality of it's foundation. For even though our wrath is tainted with selfish considerations, it is often based upon something true. This brings me around to the Theomorphic principle ... though fallen, we are made in the image of God. Our wrath imperfectly reflects his own. We are never told to not be angry, because it's not only impossible, it's unfitting. It's apathetic, even less than human, not to be angry about the actions of serial killers and child rapists. We are rather told, "Be angry and sin not".
Secondly, if a man allows someone else's fate flippantly (kind of like Willie Wonka, who didn't really seem to lift a finger to prevent the demise of his guests, who were unruly brats), we have a basis for complaint. But when God is said to have taken every pain, in the incarnation, to have prevented our ruin, the same complaint is invalid. Christ suffered a hell on the cross, that we cannot even imagine. He had the guilt and rage of the sins of the entire world upon his spirit. Why else could a son who was perfect cry "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", as even the sun refused to shine on him, in his vicarious vileness? I'm not trying to convince you completely at this time ... but to suggest that Hell cannot be called the torment of an injust tyrant, if that "tyrant" could be shown to have taken all it's pains and torments upon himself to keep us from it.
Thirdly, in addition to the anthropomorphic descriptions of God's wrath, there are also in the Bible descriptions of self condemnation ... Of Hell being a fate, a choice, a logical end to a chosen path. This is not incompatible with the former descriptions, because they are not mutually exclusive. I've been angry at what people have done to themselves too. Dostoevsky's description may be helpful here, from "The Brothers Karamazov":
"From 'Of Hell and Hell fire: A Mystical discourse'
Fathers and teachers, I ask myself: 'What is hell?' And I answered thus: 'The suffering of being no longer able to love.' Once in infinite existence, measured neither by time or space, a certain spiritual being, through his appearance on Earth, was granted the ability to say to himself: 'I am and I love." Once, once only, he was given a moment of active living love, and for that he was given earthly life with its times and seasons. And what then? And what then? This fortunate being rejected the invaluable gift, did not value it, did not love it, looked upon it with scorn, and was left unmoved by it. This being, having departed the earth, sees Abraham's bosom, and talks with Abraham, as is shown us in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and he beholds paradise, and could rise up to the Lord, but his torment is precisely to rise up to the Lord without having loved, to touch those who loved him- him who disdained their love. For he sees clearly and says to himself: "Now I have knowledge, and though I thirst to love, there will be no great deed in my love, no sacrifice, for my earthly life is over, and Abraham will not come with a drop of living water (that is with a renewed gift of the former life, earthly and active) to cool the flame of the thirst for spiritual love that is burning me now, since I scorned it on earth; life is over, and time will be no more! Though I would gladly give my life for others, it is not possible now, for the life I could have sacrificed for love is gone, and there is now an abyss between that life and this existence." People speak of the material flames of hell. I do not explore this mystery, and I fear it, but I think that if there were material flames, truly people would be glad to have them, for, as I fancy, in material torment they might forget, at least for a moment, their far more terrible spiritual torment. And yet it is impossible to take this spiritual torment from them, for this torment is not external but is within them. And were it possible to take it from them, then, I think their unhappiness would be even greater because of it. For though the righteous would forgive them from paradise, seeing their torments, and call them to themselves, loving them boundlessly, they would thereby only increase their torments, for they would arouse in them an even stronger flame of thirst for reciprocal, active, and grateful love, which is no longer possible. Nevertheless, in the timidity of my heart I think that the very awareness of this impossibility would serve in the end to relieve them, for, having accepted the love of the righteous together with the impossibility of requitting it, in this obedience and act of humility they would attain at last to a certain image, as it were, of the active love they scorned on earth, and an action somewhat similar to it ... I regret my brothers and friends, that I cannot express it clearly ..."
At any rate, though hell can never be thought desirable, by a righteous and considerate person, it need not be the cruel expression of a lesser character, concerning God.