Poll: Do you think we are born with an immortal soul?

[captainbryce]

To defeat what you consider a wrong belief. Just like mine.

Rest assured, I have no such agenda. What is right or wrong in terms of personal beliefs is relative to the individual. Any beliefs is "right" to someone, and wrong to someone else. Attempting to defeat a belief is illogical!

The "agenda" I was referring to earlier was not yours but those who push things like the "Samuel's soul was actually a demon in disguise even though the text doesn't say this whatsoever". These are people who convolute wacky interpretations that go plain beyond the plain reading of the text for the sake of a Theology that doesn't involve living souls. It's a popular idea in the modern times but it's based on a dogged refusal

Their is this religious cult out there called Pentecostal Christians who believe that we should dance around with venomous snakes, without fear of getting bit, because our faith in God will protect us. This is based on their "plain reading" of the biblical text. So according to you, ALL Christians should follow their example right? I'm mean, it would require a "convoluted and wacky interpretation" to go beyond what the bible says in Mark 16, right?

Or would you say that it is more prudent for people to exercise reason, common sense, look at the INTENT of the scripture, figure out what message is being presented and how to apply that, rather than the getting caught up in the details? What say you?

 

[Shermana]

Rest assured, I have no such agenda. What is right or wrong in terms of personal beliefs is relative to the individual. Any beliefs is "right" to someone, and wrong to someone else. Attempting to defeat a belief is illogical!

Their is this religious cult out there called Pentecostal Christians who believe that we should dance around with venomous snakes, without fear of getting bit, because our faith in God will protect us. This is based on their "plain reading" of the biblical text. So according to you, ALL Christians should follow their example right? I'm mean, it would require a "convoluted and wacky interpretation" to go beyond what the bible says in Mark 16, right?

Or would you say that it is more prudent for people to exercise reason, common sense, look at the INTENT of the scripture, figure out what message is being presented and how to apply that, rather than the getting caught up in the details? What say you?

For every Christian who suffers from a self-induced snakebite, it furthers proof that they're not a True believer but a huckster distorting what Jesus taught. However, the text does not say to pick up a snake or to attempt to drink poison. It's implying that if you're a true believer and if you're persecuted and forced to drink poison that you'll survive, IF you are a TRUE believer. Those who want to believe they're a TRUE believer but aren't will learn quickly the truth. Faith in God does not protect those who presume they are doing what he wants...but aren't.

 

[captainbryce]

This is a chance to test your hypothesis that the soul is conciousness.

Obviously a person can kill conciousness by murdering the body (running with your assumption that there is no independant soul which can maintain conciousness after the death of the body) . Since the scripture clearly states that people cannot kill the soul it becomes self evident that the soul is not conciousness.

Not exactly. When your body dies, your soul also dies (but not permanently). If I kill you, your body may be dead and your soul may seem dead as well, but only temporarily. Death of the soul is described as a state of "sleep". Remember, upon resurrection, your soul becomes alive again. I have no power to destroy your soul because it will ultimately be resurrected. Only God can destroy your soul permanently. This is the "second death"! So it does make sense.

 

[captainbryce]

For every Christian who suffers from a self-induced snakebite, it's furthers proof that they're not a True believer but a huckster distorting what Jesus taught.

Yes, in this I would agree with you. But you're missing my point! According to the Pentecostals, snake handling is a sign that they are true believers. And they derive this logic from their plain reading of the text. To say that they are "distorting" what Jesus taught requires "convoluted wacky interpretations" as far as they see it. What I'm saying is that interpretation is a matter of perspective. I'm playing devil's advocate here to make a point. You cannot claim that your "plain reading" of the text should be interpreted by everyone as the "plain reading".

 

[Shermana]

Let's make this simple:

1 Samuel 28 says that Samuel's soul was summoned, and it says "Samuel said" when he's talking.

How's that for plain reading?

 

[captainbryce]

Well, if you leave the debate while I have shown the Problems with your interpretations, then that is your loss.

But you haven't. You've only shown YOUR problems with my interpretation. Which is not a valid argument!

Actually it is not your personal loss, but it is a loss of an old belief, that has little to do with the original teachings of Christ.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion (which I find unsuppotable using scripture). Again, we are at an impasse, thus demonstrating the futility of this debate.

Well, when you used a Translation that has added a word that does not exist in the original Greek, should I not point it out?

The translation is irrelevant. The message remains the same in any translation of the scripture. People who were not given God's law are still aware of God when they act in accordance with his will. That is the point you are skating around with all of these "translation" distractions.

It is obvious the verse you quoted does not make your point.

In your opinion.

That's a false accusation. I completely believe in Christ and Bible.

So you've claimed. Yet the arguments that you've made betray you. If you think that Jesus was lying when he said "the only way to the father is through me", then you are not a follower of Christ. When you try to make his words "conditional" on culture, or timeframe or whatever, then you are adding to the words of scripture and going against what he said.

What I don't agree is the misinterpretations that I have pointed out.

You've tried to point out misinterpretations, just as I have tried tell you why you are misinterpreting. Once again, the futility of arguing "religion".

Well, you are free to believe or say what you want.

I know. This fact was never in question.

Moreover had you believed in Christ, you would have also recognized Baha'u'llah as His return. Even As Baha'u'llah said:

Non-sequitur! Especially if you believe that Paul was an Apostle of Christ.

Now you are all set

I was "set" before, thank you. I need no spiritual guidance from men who claim to be following Christ. All I ever needed was the Holy Spirit (which apparently you believe is really "Baha'u'llah")

 

[Brickjectivity]

But what if you are deemed worthy to continue?

What reality shall you have?

How 'big' do your thoughts have to be.....that you are an influence?

We are already a part of Eternity. In that eternity we clearly die and turn into dirt, and then that dirt continues being dirt until it becomes part of something else. That is a very real reality. If consciousness continues, fine; but the body is dirt. How much can people accomplish with a dirt body? What happens when my body is eaten by worms and consumed by tree roots? All of that is very real. There is nothing unreal about it -- that I know of. The only caveat is that sometimes inexplicable things have happened to me, so it is fair for me to question reality altogether. I may question reality altogether, or I may accept the reality that I will turn into dirt which will feed other creatures who have an importance not that different from my own, which is somewhere near to zero importance. Perhaps some glorious fortunate creature in the near future will inherit fabulous medical advances that enable them to live forever, and if I try very hard I might write something that will influence them. That is my big shot at influencing eternity or being worthy of eternity. I've nothing to offer to Eternity that it should about-face and beg me to continue existing.

 

[captainbryce]

Let's make this simple:

In other words, let's avoid my comparative example altogether.

1 Samuel 28 says that Samuel's soul was summoned, and it says "Samuel said" when he's talking.

How's that for plain reading?

It's fine if you choose not to exercise any critical thinking on the subject in hand. If you choose to take every single scripture as literal and disregard context, intent or message, then yes the bible will not make sense and you'll end up with an illogical, jumbled mess of a belief (such as snake handling by the Pentacostals based on their plain reading of Mark 16.)

 

[captainbryce]

As far as talking to you is concerned, yes.

:sarcastic So you've implied on many other occasions. And yet, here we are again!

 

[Shermana]

In other words, let's avoid my comparative example altogether.

How did I ignore it? I showed that your example isn't necessarily a plain reading the way they regard unless they presume that they are the True believers, which would go against a plain reading of the rest of the text. A plain reading of the text indicates that they have no business claiming to be a True believer. Personally I don't give much credit to these views that overcomplicate the intent of the authors. I think they most often meant what they said unless it was spelled out that it was a parable, allegory, or metaphor.

It's fine if you choose not to exercise any critical thinking on the subject in hand. If you choose to take every single scripture as literal and disregard context, intent or message, then yes the bible will not make sense and you'll end up with an illogical, jumbled mess of a belief (such as snake handling by the Pentacostals based on their plain reading of Mark 16.

So in this case, if we choose to go by the Plain reading, we are not exercising "Critical thinking". Okay, so I guess we can say just about any interpretation we want, with any confirmation biases and presumptions based on personal subjective interpretations is the "Critical thinking" approach. Because of course OUR idea of "Context, intent, and message" is the ONLY one, right? You are just as guilty. I can just as easily say that YOU are discarding critical thinking by convoluting what you think the "context, intent and message" is. Again, you are trying to assert your opinion as if fact, as if the counter-view somehow is wrong just because it goes against your opinion, while throwing away and brushing aside the very reasons for that view. Your blue letter Bible link shows that my view is very well founded in terms of context, intent, and message, and your view requires some serious stretching and twisting that requires a set of theological presumptions and dismissals of such plain readings.

Your example of the plain reading of Mark 16 is nothing close to Comparative. It DOES say you can handle snake bites. That's the plain reading. But it says for TRUE believers. So I don't see anything wrong with them interpreting it like that as long as they don't cry when the snake bite reveals how NOT TRUE they are. What do you think the REAL meaning is? What's the "context, intent, and message" behind Mark 16?

(And let's not get into a debate over whether 16:8+ is interpolated, I don't think it is despite many church believers who have good reason to want to snip that part out, the argument against its inclusion is rather weak.)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Not exactly. When your body dies, your soul also dies (but not permanently). If I kill you, your body may be dead and your soul may seem dead as well, but only temporarily. Death of the soul is described as a state of "sleep". Remember, upon resurrection, your soul becomes alive again. I have no power to destroy your soul because it will ultimately be resurrected. Only God can destroy your soul permanently. This is the "second death"! So it does make sense.

Matthew 10:28
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."


From the verse some points can be made:

- It is possible that a physical Body be dead, but the Soul be alive.
- It is possible that a Person be Physically alive, but his soul be dead. (These are the spiritually dead people)

By being spiritually dead means, the spiritual Qualities such as kindness, Patience, forgiveness,...etc, are dead in a person.

Hell is not a physical place. It is a state of being far from God. These are the ones that Christ would tell them "Get away from me, I do not know you" Matthew 7:23

"Get away from me" equates to "Be Far"

According to this Terminalogy that God created Man in His Own Image, then When God looks at us, He will see His own image as if He is looking into a Mirror.
The Spirit being like Mirror is an analogy in Bible.
This Mirror is our Spirit, who can show the Spiritual Qualities of God.
If we make the Mirror dirty, and unclean, by our selfishness and sinful actions, it won't reflect the Image of God anymore, hence when in the Spiritual World, He will look at Our Spirit, He will not see His Own Image in it, Hence, He says: "I do not know you"




The Second death is a Figurative sign, regarding the Second revelation after Christianity, the Return of Christ.
Everytime a revelation from God comes, those who have not believed or unaware of it, metaphorically are called "Dead", and those who believe, are called "alive"

As it is written in Romans He said:

7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death."


Noticing how clearly it says just by coming of the Law and commandment He who was alive is considered to be dead. For when a New revelation comes, everyone is considered as Dead except as they start to recognize the revelation and believe, then they are considered revived and alive.

Therefore the Two death are reference to two Revelations from God, Islam and Baha'i Faith, by appearing each, those who do not believe are considered as "Dead", hence the second Death is passed Already, even as Baha'u'llah wrote:

"He is indeed as one dead who, at the wondrous dawn of this Revelation, hath failed to be quickened by its soul-stirring breeze. He is indeed a captive who hath not recognized the Supreme Redeemer, but hath suffered his soul to be bound, distressed and helpless, in the fetters of his desires.
O My servants! Whoso hath tasted of this Fountain hath attained unto everlasting Life, and whoso hath refused to drink therefrom is even as the dead. " Baha'u'llah

And The First Death was through the Revelation of Quran, those who became believers were called alive, those unbelievers Dead:

“Shall the dead whom We have quickened, and for whom We have ordained a light whereby he may walk among men, be like him, whose likeness is in the darkness, whence he will not come forth?” Quran 6:22​

But the Question in OP is explained here:


"And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty. The movement of My Pen is stilled when it attempteth to befittingly describe the loftiness and glory of so exalted a station. The honor with which the Hand of Mercy will invest the soul is such as no tongue can adequately reveal, nor any other earthly agency describe. Blessed is the soul which, at the hour of its separation from the body, is sanctified from the vain imaginings of the peoples of the world. Such a soul liveth and moveth in accordance with the Will of its Creator, and entereth the all-highest Paradise. The Maids of Heaven, inmates of the loftiest mansions, will circle around it, and the Prophets of God and His chosen ones will seek its companionship. With them that soul will freely converse, and will recount unto them that which it hath been made to endure in the path of God, the Lord of all worlds. If any man be told that which hath been ordained for such a soul in the worlds of God, the Lord of the throne on high and of earth below, his whole being will instantly blaze out in his great longing to attain that most exalted, that sanctified and resplendent station.... The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men. The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High. " Baha'u'llah

 

[danieldemol]

Not exactly. When your body dies, your soul also dies (but not permanently). If I kill you, your body may be dead and your soul may seem dead as well, but only temporarily. Death of the soul is described as a state of "sleep". Remember, upon resurrection, your soul becomes alive again. I have no power to destroy your soul because it will ultimately be resurrected. Only God can destroy your soul permanently. This is the "second death"! So it does make sense.

Does the soul "seem dead" or is it dead?

Does the physical body "seem dead" or is it dead?

The scripture says that man can kill the body, but according to you if it can't be killed permanently it is not really killed. So which is it? Can man not kill the body and not kill the soul since according to you they are only "seeming dead" since God is going to bring both back upon resurrection?

Or can man kill the body and the conciousness (which to you is the soul), thus contradicting the scriptures which say that only one can be killed and not the other?

I insist your line of reasoning is dubious and internally inconsistent.

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

This requires no further "interpretation" for anyone capable of rational thought.

 

[captainbryce]

How did I ignore it? I showed that your example isn't necessarily a plain reading the way they regard unless they presume that they are the True believers, which would go against a plain reading of the rest of the text.

And I did not disagree with you on that point. My point was that it is a matter of perspective. And I'm sure that if you talked to a Pentecostal, they'd say that you are not following the plain reading.

A plain reading of the text indicates that they have no business claiming to be a True believer.

I would concur with that 100%. Yet, I cannot deny the words they use to justify their interpretation, just like I cannot deny the words you are using to justify your interpretation. All I can tell you that I have a different interpretation, tell you why I have a different interpretation, and assure you that I'm very comfortable that my interpretation is justified via scripture.

Personally I don't give much credit to these views that overcomplicate the intent of the authors. I think they most often meant what they said unless it was spelled out that it was a parable, allegory, or metaphor.

That's exactly what it is in my view. Allegory! Scripture cannot contradict itself, at least not in any doctrinally significant way. If it appears to do so, then the problem must lie in one's interpretation, which should then force someone to re-examine their interpretation. Why would the bible say that the soul shall die if the soul in fact lives on after death? Why would the bible say that your soul is destroyed in hell, if every soul is actually "immortal"? Those are contradictory teachings that present scripture as being inconsistent with itself.

So in this case, if we choose to go by the Plain reading, we are not exercising "Critical thinking". Okay, so I guess we can say just about any interpretation we want, with any confirmation biases and presumptions based on personal subjective interpretations is the "Critical thinking" approach. Because of course OUR idea of "Context, intent, and message" is the ONLY one, right?

Let me ask you this rhetorical question, do you think that your interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit? If your answer is yes, and that answer is true, then that is good enough for me! Your interpretation is correct. If your answer is yes, but that answer is not true, then you are just fooling yourself! If your answer is no, then it IS by default a wrong interpretation.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.

Matthew 7:7
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

1 John 2:27
But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

You are just as guilty. I can just as easily say that YOU are discarding critical thinking by convoluting what you think the "context, intent and message" is.

Of course I am, and of course you could. I never claimed otherwise. Everyone's interpretation is just that, an interpretation! I have no doubt that many Christians would consider my entire view on scripture to be an abomination. In their minds, it makes sense (according to scripture) that God is actually three different people, who made the world 6,000 years ago, and sends the majority of people who ever lived to eternal torment in hell. In their "plain reading" of scripture, THIS somehow makes perfect sense! The fact that I interpret it differently means that I am convolution scripture. Who am I to say that their opinion is "wrong" just because it doesn't make sense to me?

Again, you are trying to assert your opinion as if fact, as if the counter-view somehow is wrong just because it goes against your opinion, while throwing away and brushing aside the very reasons for that view.

I'm doing no such thing. I never pass my opinion off as fact. I merely state it! :yes:

Your blue letter Bible link shows that my view is very well founded in terms of context, intent, and message, and your view requires some serious stretching and twisting that requires a set of theological presumptions and dismissals of such plain readings.

If that's how you choose to interpret it, that is your prerogative. But I've given you the reasons why I don't interpret it that way. That does not constitute passing my opinion off as fact. It's just expressing the fact that I have a difference of opinion.

Your example of the plain reading of Mark 16 is nothing close to Comparative. It DOES say you can handle snake bites. That's the plain reading. But it says for TRUE believers. So I don't see anything wrong with them interpreting it like that as long as they don't cry when the snake bite reveals how NOT TRUE they are. What do you think the REAL meaning is? What's the "context, intent, and message" behind Mark 16?

(And let's not get into a debate over whether 16:8+ is interpolated, I don't think it is despite many church believers who have good reason to want to snip that part out, the argument against its inclusion is rather weak.)

My interpretation of it is that when people inevitably come in contact with dangerous situations, they pray about, and then subsequently survive the danger, it will be a sign that they are believers. The "serpent" is merely symbolic and representative of any type of "deadly" danger. It doesn't necessarily have to be a literal snake. If you want to argue that it is literal, then why only serpents? Why not lions, or wolves or sharks? A serpent won't hurt me if I'm a believer, but a cougar will? :sarcastic

 

[Shermana]

Why would the bible say that your soul is destroyed in hell,

You are confusing "Can" with "Will".

I will respond to anything else of relevance Sunday.

 

[Thief]

We are already a part of Eternity. In that eternity we clearly die and turn into dirt, and then that dirt continues being dirt until it becomes part of something else. That is a very real reality. If consciousness continues, fine; but the body is dirt. How much can people accomplish with a dirt body? What happens when my body is eaten by worms and consumed by tree roots? All of that is very real. There is nothing unreal about it -- that I know of. The only caveat is that sometimes inexplicable things have happened to me, so it is fair for me to question reality altogether. I may question reality altogether, or I may accept the reality that I will turn into dirt which will feed other creatures who have an importance not that different from my own, which is somewhere near to zero importance. Perhaps some glorious fortunate creature in the near future will inherit fabulous medical advances that enable them to live forever, and if I try very hard I might write something that will influence them. That is my big shot at influencing eternity or being worthy of eternity. I've nothing to offer to Eternity that it should about-face and beg me to continue existing.

Recycling your dust into the rest of the living world could happen....
if you have burial without casket and vault.
In this place it is law to have both.

If you do cremation, the chemistry is rendered almost inert.
Ashes can be tossed just about anywhere.

But I don't see that we follow our dust....anywhere.
If we do...it is into the grave.
If so....nothing is reused.

Written word as influence?....yeah.
And the angels are looking over my shoulder.(so I believe)

Later....when I surrender my last breath...
the angels will come looking to see what stands from the dust.
They might ask.....what have you done?...what have you said?
Who did you tell?

If I have said well enough...fine....a following will be allowed.
If not...they will leave me wherever I fell.

Either way....
They will later come looking for you.(so I believe)

They will ask....who told you that?.....and why did you believe it?

If you believe me...we share the same fate...good or bad.

It is written....trust no one...question everything.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm loving your post.

Recycling your dust into the rest of the living world could happen....
if you have burial without casket and vault.
In this place it is law to have both.

You're a natural English speaking poet.
Many poets are thieves who steal.
They steal lies.

If you do cremation, the chemistry is rendered almost inert.
Ashes can be tossed just about anywhere.

If the universe stops expanding and goes into a big crunch, will we meet ourselves going the other direction?
What is deja vu and who would bother knowing my future?

But I don't see that we follow our dust....anywhere.
If we do...it is into the grave.
If so....nothing is reused.

The grave is reused and is never filled
sadness is its lovely flower
tears are its only joy

Written word as influence?....yeah.
And the angels are looking over my shoulder.(so I believe)

Later....when I surrender my last breath...
the angels will come looking to see what stands from the dust.
They might ask.....what have you done?...what have you said?
Who did you tell?

If I have said well enough...fine....a following will be allowed.
If not...they will leave me wherever I fell.

Either way....
They will later come looking for you.(so I believe)

They will ask....who told you that?.....and why did you believe it?

If you believe me...we share the same fate...good or bad.

It is written....trust no one...question everything.

What is sweeter than honey and also stronger than a lion?
Truth is both of these things, but truth is not for mortals.
Admit this, Mortal, and you will be protected from lies.
Lions won't be able to tear you or even taste you.

 

[Thief]

I'm loving your post.


What is sweeter than honey and also stronger than a lion?
Truth is both of these things, but truth is not for mortals.
Admit this, Mortal, and you will be protected from lies.
Lions won't be able to tear you or even taste you.

I've seen truth in scripture offered as....sweet to the taste and bitter in the stomach.

And the Carpenter told His disciples....you know not what your ask.

And it is written.....fear not whoever would harm the flesh....
fear instead He who is able to rend the soul.

 

[captainbryce]

You are confusing "Can" with "Will".

I'm not "confusing" anything. I think you are "refusing" to answer the actual question. :yes:

I will respond to anything else of relevance Sunday.

It's convenient what one arbitrarily decides is "relevant" in an opinion based debate. But facts are always relevant. And the fact is, scripture says that the wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal torment. Since you haven't responded in the last 3 Sunday's, I'm going to take that to mean that you have no actual response. Would that be a fair assessment? :sarcastic

 

[Shermana]

I'm not "confusing" anything. I think you are "refusing" to answer the actual question. :yes:

I did answer your question, you simply confused "Can" with "Will". What part don't you understand? You are simply misreading the text and assuming that what is capable of being done will always be done.

It's convenient what one arbitrarily decides is "relevant" in an opinion based debate. But facts are always relevant. And the fact is, scripture says that the wages of sin is DEATH,

Death is referring to death in the body.

not eternal torment

.

Age long torment. And yes, scripture does indicate age long torment.

Since you haven't responded in the last 3 Sunday's, I'm going to take that to mean that you have no actual response. Would that be a fair assessment? :sarcastic

Nah I just forgot about your post. I'll look back and see if there's anything worth responding to where you actually made a solid rebuttal. So far all I'm seeing that you have an actual point, in which I agree, is that the Snakes do "represent" other dangers, but that's not what a "Symbol" is. If you feel you have a solid point I missed that's related to your issue, please restate.

 

[captainbryce]

I did answer your question, you simply confused "Can" with "Will". What part don't you understand?

The part I don't understand is why you think that we are born with an "immortal soul" if you acknowledge the fact that it CAN indeed be destroyed? That's a contradiction plain and simple.

You are simply misreading the text and assuming that what is capable of being done will always be done.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. I'm saying that there is reason why scripture says the soul can be destroyed. That statement refutes the idea that the soul is inherently "immortal". By definition, something that is immortal cannot be destroyed.

Death is referring to death in the body.

That's what you say. But that's not what the scripture says. It merely says "death". You added the “in the body” yourself. But that is not supported by scripture, especially given the context of Matthew 10:28 (and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, and Ezekiel 18:20). According to all of those passages, the soul is NOT immortal. Logic suggests (based on the plain reading of the text) that the soul is something which IS destroyed in hell along with the body.

Matthew 10:28
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

Ezekiel 18:20 (King James Version)
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Age long torment. And yes, scripture does indicate age long torment.

No it doesn't. It indicates that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented. But this passage is from Revelation (an allegorical account), and is not described with any details. We don't know what kind of "torment" they will suffer or if it is even literal. In fact, since the beast isn't even a person, it would make even less sense to assume that this torment is one that some conscious mind would experience. It is more likely that (like nearly everything else in the book of Revelation) it is merely symbolic. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with the wicked who will be punished in hell. Scripture clearly says that the wages of sin is death. There is no scripture that says the wages of sin is eternal torment. And there is no scripture that suggests that the soul of the wicked somehow survives death. These are not biblical ideas.

Nah I just forgot about your post. I'll look back and see if there's anything worth responding to where you actually made a solid rebuttal. So far all I'm seeing that you have an actual point, in which I agree, is that the Snakes do "represent" other dangers, but that's not what a "Symbol" is. If you feel you have a solid point I missed that's related to your issue, please restate.

See above! Long story short, your position that the soul is immortal and/or that the wicked suffer eternally in a conscious state cannot be reconciled by what scripture says, it's that simple.