Tristen

I do not consider it my job to judge the "teacher", but rather the teaching. I listen to teaching to hear and learn from God - and not to scrutinize the legitimacy of the one delivering the message. The Holy Spirit can speak to you though a message - even if the doctrinal intent of the preacher is wrong. Furthermore, a person can be 100% sincere in their faith - and at the same time 100% incorrect in some aspect of their doctrine. Only God knows the heart of the "teacher". I would encourage that we have sufficient humility and fear of God to refrain from speaking against potential works of God - simply because we disagree with some aspect of their doctrine. Or do we suppose ourselves to be the only Christian in history whom God has never had to teach and correct? We make utility of basic hermeneutical (interpretation) principles. For example, does the "teacher's" use of scripture conform to the meaning of the text when considered in-context? That means examining consistency between the "teacher's " use against the immediate grammatical context (surrounding verses, original language), local grammatical context (within the author's argument - e.g. letter or Gospel), and general grammatical context (i.e. the rest of scripture). Anyone who discourages you from examining the scriptures for yourself is a "red flag"- including irritation at you scrutinizing their teaching against scripture. Even then, we should employ humility, grace and discernment; remembering that this could be a sign of mere insecurity, and not necessarily insincerity of heart. We all, even our "teachers", have human weaknesses and corruptions to overcome.

Painting eggs for Easter has its origins in early Christian tradition. During the period leading up to Passover (Germanic: Oster or Osterfest - i.e. Easter), some Christians would abstain from consuming animal products. However, their chickens didn't stop laying eggs. The Christians would boil the eggs to preserve them and paint these eggs to distinguish them from fresh eggs - to consumed after the Lent period. "Ishtar" is an ancient Babylonian deity that has no direct evidential relationship to Easter - other than the fact that the two words sound a little similar. This error in reasoning is termed the Phonetic Fallacy. The fact that a word in one language sounds similar to another word in another language does not entail that the words are somehow related. Any English speaker can find many words in English that sound identical - and yet have no relationship in their definitions.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

There is not enough information in scripture justifying dogmatism about a putative "age of accountability" (one way or the other). Arguments can be made from scripture supporting or rebutting this idea. The concept of an "age of accountability" is neither directly, nor repeatedly, addressed by scripture. It therefore cannot be considered a settled matter by honest assessment. No one knows for certain how inheriting our sin nature works. It may well be that our "inherited" corrupted nature branches out like a vine growing from Adam's spirit - meaning there is a sense in which we were all in Adam, making the decision to sin with Adam. In that case, no-one is "completely innocent" - not even "newborns". My suspicion is that God left this issue ambiguous on purpose. What is completely clear is that the Biblical God is perfectly just - and will therefore make the fair, morally correct, decision; regardless of where we individually land in our assessment.

This is my response to the OP. My apologies if I'm repeating ideas. I think people, in-general, are fascinated with the idea of a post-apocalyptic world. I would suggest that fascination is what accounts for the graphical depictions. I am not personally aware that there is a volume of such work. Nevertheless, secular media is saturated with post-apocalyptic narratives. Likewise, in the church, so-called 'End Times' teaching is a very popular topic of discussion. I can see two potential benefits: 1 - We should always teach what we believe to be true in order to give hearers an informed perspective from which to make informed decisions. Informing the church of the tribulation may encourage some to take their faith more seriously - so as to avoid going through the time of God's wrath on earth. 2 - Getting information to those who happen to be "left behind" - so they know the truth when it happens - and ideally know to turn to God. I've heard suggestions that the world will try to explain the disappearance of Christians as God removing the evil Church. It is therefore beneficial to those who remain to have the knowledge that such an event was predicted in scripture - as an act of God removing His people to spare them from the coming wrath.

Fellowship with Christ through His Word is fundamental to the life of a Christian. However, we must be careful that our study of God's Word remains a matter of fellowship - and be cautious against reading scripture as a matter of legalistic obligation. That is, we don't need any new laws to guide how and what we read in scripture. We rather fellowship with God through scripture as led by the Holy Spirit.

Since there is no objective, agreed-upon method for measuring genome similarity, I find percentage comparisons between species to be logically spurious and overly simplistic - and heavily prone to bias. For example: - Are we doing a whole (base-to-base) genome comparison, or only comparing protein coding sections? And what about functional, non-coding, transcription factors? - Are different amounts of chromosomes between the compared species counted as differences, or are we only comparing genetic information content - and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not? - What if one species has one copy of a gene, but the other species has many copies of the same gene - is that a similarity or a difference? - What if both species have the same gene, but in different positions on the chromosome, or on different chromosomes - similarity or difference? - What if a gene that performs the same function is coded differently between the compared species? How much code variance is permitted before the distinction becomes a difference, rather than a similarity - and why this amount? - What if both species have the same functional gene, but in different versions (e.g. both have the same gene for producing hair color, but each species has different hair color options) - is that counted as a similarity or difference? etc. We can discuss variances of intron/exon structures, haplotypes, telomeres, antibody production, epigenetics etc., etc. There are simply far too many conflating factors for any percentage comparison claim to have any useful (rationally objective) implication.

Both sides of the debate employ the same logical method to investigate the past. Both sides invent stories with the explicit aim of reconciling the evidence to their preferred model of reality. There is therefore no objectively rational value in using disparaging language to characterize the explanations of the other side.

I already addressed two of the 4 questions you posited. And the secular narrative is "tied" to naturalistic explanations. The Bible leaves many aspects of history and science unexplained. There are therefore many, many aspects of the natural world that creationists are left to explain - that are not directly addressed in the Bible. Our job is to come up with a potential history that reconciles the evidence to the Bible. Since we can't go back in time to make the necessary observations, our explanations are also speculations - that may, or may not, be accurate representations of what really happened. The same logical limitation applies to all claims about the past; whether secular or creationist. Right - but what you (or I) "buy" is subjective. What is objectively true is that all claims about the past are stories that may, or may not, be true. Honesty demands that we acknowledge logical limitations. Normally, that has to be explained to the secularist - but the same rules of logic apply to us. They would (and often do) make exactly the same claims about their narrative and paradigm. That is why such statements are meaningless and time-wasting. I'm often asked by secularists why the universe looks old. It is the refusal to factor-in your own biases that leads you to the same rhetorical mistake as the secularists. You think their position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". They think our position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". To me, all such claims are fruitless, rhetorical bluster. Truth 1 - The Bible indicates that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago. Truth 2 - Even without direct measurements, we are happy to concede that light is reaching the earth from stars that are millions/billions of light years away. Conclusion: (i.e. Story/guess/explanation) - God created the earth complete/mature/"full-formed"/"ready-made" as would an "artist" finish their work-of-art. This conclusion is speculation/conjecture about what may, or may not, have actually happened. It is a story that was made-up to reconcile the evidence with the Biblical model. Please understand that I am not denigrating your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is the logical nature of past claims - and the logical limitation of past investigations. There is therefore no logical value in either side rhetorically denigrating the explanations of the others - because we both, of logical necessity, utilize the same brittle method to defend our preferred models. It's not a "dodge". It's a valid attempt to answer the question in a way the reconciles the evidence to the model. But it is a "guess", a story, a speculation about what might have happened (how God might have created) - which is OK. But in honest fair-mindedness, it also has to be OK when the other side does it. These are Arguments from Ignorance - and therefore not logically valid rebuttals. Given the specific and rare requirements for fossilization, we cannot logically claim to know what would, or would not, have undergone fossilization. Any number of explanations (stories) could account for the disappearance of sub-populations of humans. Sub-populations of species routinely go extinct due to factors such as disease, or extreme weather, or predation, or interbreeding, or violence etc. They would explain the path from ape to human as occurring through small genomic changes over time. Your story about God completing His work like an artist is absolutely an invention. I'm explaining the logical limitations of the methods we both apply - for the explicit purpose of dissuading empty rhetorical arguments from our side. It's not "spinning in circles" to try and improve the logical quality of our arguments. The "fluff" is when we denigrate the opposing position's explanations as "guesses" and "fairy tales" - all the while we are using the exact same method and logic to support our arguments. I am not here to debate YEC with you - as I am already an affirmed YEC; and have been for over three decades. You say "easy" for your story. And they say "easy" for their stories. And ultimately, both sides have a bunch of stories that the other side calls "fairy tales". Your story is consistent with your model - guess what, their stories are also consistent with their model. So then, the conversation can, as you say, move on to more "concrete" issues - or both sides can continue to waste time on the rhetorical merry-go-round. "Your telling fairy tales". "No, your telling fairy tales". "your inventing stories". "No, you are the one who's just guessing". "I know you are but what am I" etc. etc. My purpose for engaging was to improve the rational quality of your creationist argument. If you want me to distinguish the facts from the stories as I did with your "painter" explanation, I'll happily do that with any argument you care to provide. But you should be able to do that yourself. As a creationist, I already know the creationist arguments. That debate is not why I'm here.

Agreed. Time becomes their god. That is, 'Given enough time, who knows what is possible?'. To be fair though, our preferred model of reality incorporates actual supernatural elements - which also vastly broadens the range of possible explanations. There is no way to directly "test" any past (or supernatural) claim. We can only indirectly "test" such claims through consistency between the available evidence and our respective models. That is, if the available evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, then the model (objectively speaking) might be accurate - and is therefore a legitimate option for fair consideration (but also, there is a possibility that the available evidence may have been generated via a completely different story of history than what we are proposing). That is the ever-existing weakness with any claim about the unobserved past. Even new evidence that is consistent with model predictions only means that the model might still be accurate. Again, to be fair, we do a lot of guessing ourselves. The same logical weaknesses apply to both sides trying to investigate the past. I see no objective value in pretending (or posturing) that only the secular narrative has such weaknesses. Yes - there are many unanswered questions for the secular narrative of history. And again, there are many questions/challenges and gaps in the creationist narrative of history. They will respond to challenges by claiming, "That is just how science works; we don't know things - until we do". Unfortunately, by way of double-standard, they will rarely afford us that same grace; acting as though any challenge to our position is tantamount to the wholesale falsification of young-earth creationism (YEC). I agree that we often have to reveal to them that there are logical weaknesses in their own preferred narrative - before they'll hear anything we have to say about YEC. I guess my problem here is, that - even as a YEC, I think I can answer these from the secular perspective. The first two, for example, are technically Arguments from Ignorance - i.e. logic fallacies arguing on the basis of what we haven't observed - claiming to know what we should have observed. I think your earlier appeal to "the origin of life" is a much, much stronger challenge to the secular narrative. Absolutely - and that is (usually) the first obstacle we need to overcome in the conversation - to get them to even consider considering what we have to say.

Hi Retro, I have been a "Young-earth creationist" (so-called) for over three decades. My concern is our tendency to fall into the same time-wasting trap as proponents of the secular narrative. Consider: When the secularist claims creationists ignore evidence, are anti-science/anti-intellectual - or that we believe in "fairy tales" - does that ridicule sway your position at all? Do you think ridiculing the secular arguments as "fairy tales" sways your opponent's position? I'm simply trying to caution fellow creationists away from rhetoric that doesn't move the argument - and may even result in opponents becoming more defensive. I am aware that secularists like to exaggerate their conclusions as 'established truths' - and therefore often need reminding that investigations of the past logically implement more storytelling than observation. However, it is not fair-minded (or useful) to ridicule their conclusions - as though this logical limitation only applies to their conclusions about the past. Many of those we encounter in this debate do not respect the authority of the Bible - and have been raised to exclusively believe the secular narrative. Nothing is gained by simply retorting that their "worldview is the REAL "fairy tale."". Again, my issue is with us trying to win a rhetorical argument; forgetting that we are actually trying to reach people's hearts. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that their exclusive confidence in the secular narrative is not justified by evidence or logic, and that what they have been taught incorporates larger elements of speculation, conjecture, assumption etc. AND THEREFORE, that the creationist view is an equally-valid alternative to the secular narrative. Incendiary rhetoric is unnecessary - and potentially hindering to our ultimate goal. It is perfectly valid to expose the inherent "assumptions" in their arguments. However, to claim those assumptions are "faulty" exposes your own bias - given that we also have no way to verify/falsify the applied "assumptions". The weakness with regards to "assumptions" is that the conclusions are relying on logical elements that can not be verified/falsified. Therefore, no-one is logically obligated to those conclusions (as is often falsely implied). If the "assumptions" happen to be wrong, then the conclusions are untrustworthy. Since the "assumptions" can be wrong (and there is usually evidence to support that possibility), we are justified in distrusting (i.e. justified in not accepting) the conclusions. You can support your argument "with fact". But if your argument incorporates logical bias, then your argument loses credibility. You are failing to consider the paradigm of the secularist you are engaging with - and that not everyone you speak to automatically trusts the "testimony" of scripture. The first step in this debate is often an attempt to show them that you are logically/scientifically/intellectually permitted to question and disagree with the secular narrative. I find that to be the hardest part of the conversation, since they have been indoctrinated to think that only their position is valid - and won't take anything we say seriously until we unravel that lie. So, they say we are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". Then we say we they are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". So much time-and-energy is wasted on this type of rhetorical bluster.

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Since God raised Jesus from the dead (demonstrating power over death), we surrender our life to Jesus as our Lord (Master, Owner, God). By this sincere act of faith we are "saved". Believing "in Jesus" and "in Jesus' name" are poetic ways of saying essentially the same thing. Our name is the representation of us. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other [the Person], for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. [the Name]” Furthermore, the name of Jesus (Hb. 'Yeshua') compounds God (Hb. 'Yahweh') and Saviour/Deliverer (Hb. 'yosha'). Matthew 1:21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.

This is well said. My concern is with Young-earth creationists who advance rhetorical arguments rather than rational arguments - because I think we have the stronger rational arguments. I therefore consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions (which is why they are so popular with proponents of the secular narrative). For example, you said, "it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales" - which is an implied denigration of the method they use to draw their conclusions. That is, the statement is a rhetorical invitation to dismiss the opposition as spouting mere "fairy tales". However, in reality, both sides are merely asking how history might have unfolded to produce the current universe - given their respective faith assumptions (i.e. for creationists - that the Bible is true, and for secularists - that no god has participated in the unfolding of history). Since neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations, the conclusions of both sides can be equally labelled "guesses", stories, speculations etc. (investigators like to call them 'models'). That is simply the logical nature (and limitation) of historical modelling. It is the want of secularists to pretend their position is, by default, intellectually superior. We, however, should be mindful to reign-in the influence of our biases - so as to be more objectively critical in our analysis.

i would caution against using the absolutist mathematic term "proof/prove". Science does not "prove" things - i.e. science does not (can-not) generate absolute confidence (certainty) in any claim. Many misuse the term "proof" to exaggerate confidence in claims beyond what is scientifically (logically) possible. "Proof" is therefore an invalid standard against which to hold any scientific claim. The Scientific Method can be used to generate mathematical confidence in hypotheses about current, natural phenomena. It is thus a very robust method when applied correctly. However, when investigating the past, one must deviate away from the Scientific Method - to the far less robust modelling method. Modelling methods can only produce anecdotal confidence. Both the secular narrative of history and Young-earth creationism are valid arguments - given their respective faith presuppositions. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Both are logically unfalsifiable. As such, a Christian is free to trust the Genesis narrative of history without any intellectual (or scientific) compromise. Nevertheless, neither side will ever be able to unequivocally, scientifically "dismantle" the opposing position (at-least, not without a time machine). That is simply the logical nature of things. We can provide alternative narratives and counter-arguments - but anything beyond that is rhetorical bluster. Rhetorical bluster is a common strategy of proponents of the secular narrative - but we who hold the truth should endeavor to hold ourselves to a higher standard. .

From the perspective of logic, the direct answer to your question is "No". When the KJV was originally translated, the translators of the time simply translated the text into the formal spoken language of the time - i.e. translated from the manuscripts in the original languages. Translators of modern versions of the Bible did/do the same. Even the NKJV deferred to the original manuscripts and updated information - i.e. they did not just adjust the KJV to make it easier to read. It may be true that classical English was closer in sentence structure to the original Bible languages. That simply means the newer, 'Dynamic Equivalent' translations are a bit further away from 'Word-for-word' than the earlier English translations. The words are typically the same (i.e. direct translations of the original words from the original text), but the sentence structures have been tweaked slightly to make them read fluently in modern English. Valid concerns over translations have more to do with the 'families' of manuscripts from which each version was translated. This is further complicated by the fact that many translations have "Revised" editions that have subsequently updated their Bible version with information from other manuscript 'families'. I personally trust certain 'families' of manuscripts more than others. However, I have not found any major doctrinal changes between the versions. In some translations, certain doctrines are slightly diluted when compared against other versions - and that's all.

God has progressively revealed Himself to humanity over time. These men walked by faith in the light of God's revelation at the time. For whatever reason, God selected to not directly correct this behavior at the time. Through this decision, we now have examples reinforcing Jesus' edict pointing to Genesis as God's intended pattern of marriage (Mark 10:6-7). We also have the wisdom of Ecclesiastes - whereby Solomon actively pursues every earthly desire, concluding that all earthly pursuits are empty/void/pointless (i.e. "vain" and "grasping at the wind"). Ecclesiastes 12:13 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. From the revelation of the New Covenant, we learn: a) Marriage is designed by God to work in the patten established in Genesis. b) God is ready to forgive the sins of those who are sincerely repentant - in faith of His mercy and grace.

1 - There are five leadership gifts bestowed for the purpose of establishing and building the Church (i.e. the body of believers). Ephesians 4:11-13 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; The role of the Prophet in this ministry context is to administer God's vision for the Church. 2 - There are gifts given to believers by the Holy Spirit to bless the Church - that are independent of leadership roles. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. The role of the gift of prophecy is to provide specific encouragement to believers from the heart of God. 1 Corinthians 14:1-4 1 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

These men were indeed "revered", but that doesn't mean they were perfect. They had human weaknesses - like the rest of us. Through scripture, we can learn from written doctrines, but we can also learn from Biblical examples. The "revered" men who had multiple wives/concubines also experienced disastrous calamities stemming directly from the deviation from God's design for marriage. In every Biblical instance I can think of, there were devastating and enduring consequences for the families involved.

A prophecy from the heart of God will be specific, confirmed - and ultimately found to be accurate. Ideally, any minister of God will walk in the Fruit of the Spirit. One would routinely receive, by unction of the Holy Spirit, messages from God containing specific information that is both encouraging and useful to the intended receiver(s). Caveat: if any spiritual communication is contrary to scripture, then it is not from God.

Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.

I am happy to consider the views and opinions of others on any topic. The exact meaning of the "Image of God" is something that has had a long history of debate within both Christian and Hebrew traditions. Since this idea represents a topic that is not directly defined by scripture, there is plenty of scope for respectful disagreement. Given that we are created in the image of an eternal God, I suspect that the phrase "Image of God" can legitimately apply to many facets of human existence - and I would therefore be reluctant to place any dogmatic limitations on what this phrase could mean. My previous post only presumed to present one aspect of the "Image of God" (according to my understanding, and as suited my argument) - and was not attempting to wholly define the phrase. I am unsure why us having a body and mind that needs to grow into the maturity of God's design necessarily undermines the general claim that humans are carriers of God's image (defined as including, but not limited to, certain attributes/abilities/capacities). This argument implies a temporal limitation on God's image. I would posit that God has bestowed certain capacities to all of "mankind" that reflect His image - however, some capacities, which were ours at conception, have to be grown into as part of the God-designed, natural process of maturation. This can be contrast against Adam - who received God's image as a created adult. Therefore, even when we sleep (or are otherwise inhibited from expressing certain capacities), They are ours - because God has bestowed them on all of mankind - i.e. regardless of our stage of development or physical corruptions. In other words, we humans can be in possession of a God-given attribute, even if our current physical state inhibits our ability to fully exercise said attribute. I don't question that authority and ambassadorship are elements of God's image, however, I would suggest that being in an impaired state (as you describe above) also inhibits our expression of God's authority/ambassadorship. That is, this argument can be equally applied to your definition, as it you have applied it to a "set of attributes, talents". That's a difficult concept to quantify. If, for example, we artificially insert a gene from one "kind" into another "kind", does the receiving "kind" cease to be a member of that "kind", or are they still the original "kind" - but with an additional gene? Certain microbes have a natural (i.e. God-created) capacity to move genes between kinds. Therefore, exploiting this "barrier" between kinds has been encoded by God in nature. When scientists started investigating this, it was claimed to be around 99% similar. At my last investigation (based on improved technology) it was estimated to be around 80%. I find percentage comparisons between species to be somewhat specious and overly simplistic - and heavily prone to bias. E.g. - Are we doing a whole genome comparison, or only comparing protein coding sections? And what about functional transcription factors? - Are different amounts of chromosomes between the compared species counted as differences, or are we only comparing genetic information content - and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not? - What if one species has one copy of a gene, but the other species has many copies of the same gene - is that a similarity or a difference? - What if both species have the same gene, but in different positions on the chromosome, or on different chromosomes - similarity or difference? - What if a gene that performs the same function is coded differently between the compared species? - What if both species have the same functional gene, but in different versions (e.g. both have the same gene for producing hair color, but each species has different hair color options) - is that counted as a similarity or difference? etc. It is somewhat of a mathematical deception. Less than 1% sounds like a small amount, but "human DNA" is comprised of over 3 billion (i.e. 3 thousand-million) base nucleotide pairs. 1% therefore represents over thirty million changes. The math becomes even more complex when you consider the different effects of such changes on coding DNA.

I agree that the world is in a continual effort to belittle humans as mere animals - because we bear the image of God (which Satan sees and hates). Like God, we are freely sentient - with the free capacity to both receive and return His love in truth. Any sense that we humans are God's special creation is therefore attacked by the fallen, anti-Christian world. I still remember 80s propaganda - whereby a photo of the earth from space was widely promoted to show that the earth is merely one small blue dot amidst the vast universal expanse - and therefore we should not consider ourselves to be special in any sense. Originally, the term "APE" referred to the higher primates that are explicitly distinct from humans. Yet today, the connotation of the word has evolved, and many define humans amongst the apes. The word "human" just means belonging to "mankind" - and is therefore not problematic. Likewise, the word "species" is merely one level of a classification system invented by an avowed, God-fearing Christian. This classification system may be commonly misused to imply Common Ancestry between humans and animals - but the word "species" itself does not mean nor imply any relationship to animals. Humans have always been "supernatural" - i.e. created as living spirits with souls and bodies. Renewed humans (Christians) have the life of our spirit sourced in God's own eternal Spirit.

I am "open" to giving fair consideration to any "possibility" that is rationally supported. However, the mere suggestion (or "possibility") that I might be wrong about something carries no rational weight whatsoever.

An implication of giving His creatures free will is that God does not necessarily get what He wants. The mere existence of sin demonstrates this.

Incorrect. God is perfectly just - and therefore has no choice but to send all who have sinned to hell. Since all humans (except Jesus) have sinned, all humans deserve hell (by the standard of perfect justice). The condemnation of hell was therefore already over all humanity independent of Jesus' judgement. Through pure love, Jesus paid an unfathomably high price to provide us an escape from hell. Self-evidently, Jesus' desire was for as many as possible to be saved from hell, and into God's eternal life. The importance of freewill to God is demonstrated in that His salvation plan means we must accept/receive the provided pardon. It cannot be forced on us. The claim that Jesus does not force His will on us is logically distinct from the claim that Jesus wants people in hell. The only "decision" in Jesus' hands was whether or not to suffer the cross on our behalf. He opened the door to life and invited us in. We therefore cannot logically attribute the refusal of some to accept His invitation as Him wanting them in hell. Jesus does not send "some to hell". "Some" simply refuse to accept His offered pardon.