Dusty

Notice also that I don't 'debate your beliefs' whatsoever, i.e. the content of your sentences is entirely irrelevant to any of the things I said. I was questioning the validity of your inferences, the structure of your arguments and the coherence of your expression. What exactly you argued for I couldn't care less about. You could replace all the subject terms with 'x' and all the predicates with 'y' and it would raise the same problems.

To throw my hand in this... There are different beliefs about hell and the death/eternality of the soul (in Christianity). Personally I think it makes the most sense for your soul to be immortal, that aside... The traditional (or most common today) view is that hell is eternal. Another view is that your soul dies in hell, or at least you "cease to exist". Another view is that hell may last a long time, proportional to the way you live your life, but that it is "purifying", and...

eventually you are allowed to be in the presence of the Lord. In the original language, I believe hell is referred to as a "punishment of the ages" which leaves the translation a little bit open to interpretation. Is it forever? A long time? Either way, calling it the second death makes sense. Either you are separated from God forever, you cease to exist, or your sin nature "dies". Heavy stuff.