Annihilatioinism vs. Eternal Suffering

You will notice that Pro has dropped his argument from the parable of the unmerciful slave. When I showed him that the use of numbers doesn"t imply a limit to our debt or suffering (via Jesus" command to forgive 70 times 7) he made no reply to this in the next round, or in this one. Yet he demanded an answer to Luke 10:12-14, when its clear he really meant Luke 12:47-48. He didn"t clarify; but when I did give him a response showing this passage had nothing to do with hell, he didn"t defend it in his last round. So the space with which he could have defended these previous two arguments, he chose to take up presenting new arguments which compared hellfire to Hitler"s regime. I can only assume he believed these arguments were well refuted and so he felt the need for new ones. Pro tried to find a parallel use of "forever and ever" in other verses which didn"t really mean "eternity." He came up with Jonah 2:6 and Isaiah 34:9-10. None of these verses parallel Revelation 20:10. These verses say "forever," but none of them put emphasis on the time saying "forever AND EVER," the word "and EVER" being added for emphasis to show that eternity is in view. As for Isaiah 34;9-10, this says "From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again." If people still pass through Edom after this destruction occurs, then God"s prophecy has failed and he is found a liar. We could not know what we do know from archaeological excavations if no one passed through that land. http://www.google.com... Therefore, people are still passing through that land, and the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. When it is fulfilled, it will remain barren forever and its smoke will ascend forever, just as God said. Isaiah prophesied there ill be a place in the New World where fire will burn forever as a reminder. (Isa 66:24) I asked my opponent, assuming that John really meant to teach the torment would last for eternity, how else could he have said it, except how he did say it, "tormented forever and ever"? (Rev 20:10) Pro gave no answer. Why then, deny that he means what he says, when there is nothing else he would have said if he meant all eternity? As for Matthew 25:46, Pro argues the opposite of life is death, and interprets that death as non-existence. But John 3:36 says "Whoever believes in the Son HAS eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son WILL NOT SEE life, for God"s wrath REMAINS on them." This shows, as I"ve pointed out to him before, that eternal life is something the righteous ALREADY HAVE RIGHT NOW. This means the wicked DO NOT HAVE LIFE, THEY ARE ALREADY DEAD. So while being dead, they are conscious. This implies strongly that as the saved will continue to be conscious to enjoy eternal life on judgment day, there is no reason for the wicked to become unconscious or non-existent to experience eternal death, because they are already experiencing this death right now, just as the righteous are experiencing eternal life. (1 John 5:11-13) Another proof Pro"s equation of "death" with non-existence is the fact that the lake of fire is defined as being the second DEATH. (Rev 21:8) How can someone who does not exist be TORMENTED? Revelation 20:10 shows those who experience this second death, the lake of fire, will be TORMENTED forever and ever. Pro stretches the imagination to claim that someone who doesn"t even exist, who feels nothing, can in any sense be TORMENTED. What could TORMENT mean except a conscious experience? So if the punishment in Matthew 25:46 will last forever, and this punishment is the second death, they will actually be TORMENTED forever, for all who are not saved will be in the lake of fire. (Rev 21:8) Pro takes the expression "IF God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell," to mean that God DID spare them and has not yet sent them to hell, but the context refutes him for it also says, "IF he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood;" does that mean that he DID spare that world and has not yet brought the flood? (2 Pet 2:5) More IF statements were his burning Sodom and rescuing Lot (2 Pet 2:6-7), all thing God DID DO. Verse 9 says "if this IS SO," so God did all the things mentioned in the context, including the fact that he "DID NOT SPARE angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment." (vs. 4) Its IN HELL, in these gloomy dungeons, that these particular angels who sinned in Noah"s day (not all the evil angels), are held. So this refutes his claim that wicked men can"t also be held in hell till the day of judgment. I also asked him where the rich man was in Luke 16:19-31 and he did not answer. Why? Because it plainly says in verse 23, "IN HELL, where he was in TORMENT." The angel speaking in Revelation 14:9-13 says the wicked will be tormented in the lake of fire, but HE DOESN"T SAY WHEN this will occur. Pro imagines it will happen at the same time the righteous are still dying, but the angel doesn"t say so. Neither did he answer my original argument but sidestepped it. I argued that this verse says "THERE WILL BE NO REST DAY OR NIGHT for those who worship the beast," but if they will one day cease to exist, then there will be rest for them from their suffering and the angel is in error. So whom will you believe, Pro, or the angel? While Pro avoids my arguments, he accuses me of double standards in my use of the term "forever" at Psalm 92:7, but I never said their bodies will always cease to exist. There will be a resurrection of the physical body in which both body, united with soul, will be cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:13-15; Matt 10:28) But while these bodies will be destroyed, I showed from Vine"s Expository Dictionary examples from the Bible"s use of the Greek word for "destroy" (appollumi) that they won"t cease to exist for that isn"t what the word means. They will be damaged, unable to fulfill their purpose, loose their well-being, not their being, just like the lost son, lost sheep and the wineskins. (Luke 5:37; 15:4, 6, 24) This argument also applies to Matthew 10:28. Notice Pro still never told us WHERE the souls of the wicked who died yesterday, the souls this verse says men CANNOT KILL, are. Where are they if not in hell? Is Pro teaching purgatory? Are they roaming the earth? Guess we"ll never find out since he made his final post. How convenient. Pro claimed it wouldn"t be fair to torture people for eternity just because they never heard about Jesus, but thinks it would be fair to kill them for never hearing about Jesus. The fact is that if them not hearing the gospel makes it wrong to punish them, them both eternal torment and annihilation become unjustified, so this argument goes against BOTH our positions. This debate isn"t about what seems fair to Pro, but about what the Bible teaches. Some don"t think its fair that an innocent man had to die to save us, but its in the Bible. Pro ends with an emotional argument, comparing hell to Hitler"s regime, but we have good evidence that God many times commanded his people to do things that by our modern standards seem cruel, such as "put to death"women, children and infants." (1 Sam 15:3) Would you obey that Pro? Does it seem merciful and loving to you? The global flood in Noah"s day killed more people than Hitler, so why doubt the existence of hell? Genesis 6:7, 13, 23 says that God already outdid Hitler in genocide; should I include the women and children when he rained fire on Sodom? God is infinite in all his attributes, not just his love, but also his anger, and hatred of sin. You have no issues with getting infinite life that you don"t deserve, but argue against infinite punishment? I"m out of space, thanks for a great debate.