Jesus, Least Fit Moral Judge

[Esquilax]

Surtr nerver got off the fence, there's no reason to go any futher until that is cleared up first. His whole reason for sitting there with a fencepost up his ass was because he wanted to know where those in hell would go if it weren't eternal? Really?

Whatever else he wrote there, his point still stands. Take exception to whatever you like there, but the fact is that there's a dictionary definition of eonian that has a secondary meaning that disagrees with your premise. Now, your job is to provide a reason for why your chosen definition is the one that should be used. You haven't done that, but Surtr was able to mount a fairly convincing case for why it shouldn't be so.

As to your first piece of bolding... it's kind of a figure of speech thing, not evidence of some vast indecision in the guy's point. Unless you're really reaching to find something wrong with it, which... well, anything to avoid supporting your own case, huh catfish?

And your second... well, yes. I'd say at most that's merely a useless tangent that means nothing. Once again, if that statement was the only thing Surtr was using to support his argument, I'd be on your side. But the definition remains the same, even if you take that away. It stands on its own.

Also... well, where do souls go after hell, if its not eternal? The bible makes no mention of this, and you'd think it would at some stage, assuming a non-permanent stay in hell was what the original authors had in mind. And how do you account for the idea that souls will be cast back into hell in Revelations?

You see, this is what we call "supporting evidence." It shows that your claim doesn't mesh with what's written in the bible. Maybe it's not completely conclusive evidence, but since you have yet to display even a shred of counter evidence, it's really all we've got. Certainly, it's much more credible than saying nothing at all.

I'm not even going to ask again, as I'm now convinced you have no support for your claim at all.