Hell

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those passages from Revelation you cite clearly support annihilationism rather than eternal torment.
The others you cite are ambivalent. As the adventists put it, the results of hellfire will be eternal, not the process of being subjected to it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I tend toward annihilationism.

[Rockefeller GOP]

People who don't believe in a deity or afterlife are fine by me, until they start rephrasing the debate in the midst of their anger.  Just admit you believe in a theme park where I'll go when I die to hang out with my loved ones?  That does not describe a hypothetical interdemensional place outside of space and time where a "soul" (or a similar concept of non-physical consciousness) might reside after death.  A similar tactic is phrasing God as an old man in the sky; literally no one believes in such a thing, as any logical depiction of such a God-like figure would inherently involve Him/It being outside of space and time and therefore not "of" anything inside of it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those passages from Revelation you cite clearly support annihilationism rather than eternal torment.
The others you cite are ambivalent. As the adventists put it, the results of hellfire will be eternal, not the process of being subjected to it.

I suppose that's a possibility, but Mark 9:48 hardly sounds ambiguous to me.

Jesus there is quoting from Isaiah 66:24. From the context there, it is clear that those who are consigned there are dead and insensate, not living and able to experience the effects of the worms and fires of Gehenna. The metaphor of the trash heaps of the Valley of Hinnom has been much used in both the Old and New Testaments, but it has also been much misapplied by those who - unlike God - find comfort in the idea of a literal Hell of eternal torment.

[RINO Tom]

People who don't believe in a deity or afterlife are fine by me, until they start rephrasing the debate in the midst of their anger.  Just admit you believe in a theme park where I'll go when I die to hang out with my loved ones?  That does not describe a hypothetical interdemensional place outside of space and time where a "soul" (or a similar concept of non-physical consciousness) might reside after death.  A similar tactic is phrasing God as an old man in the sky; literally no one believes in such a thing, as any logical depiction of such a God-like figure would inherently involve Him/It being outside of space and time and therefore not "of" anything inside of it.

Oh my God, THIS.  If you want to be flabbergasted by people's belief in the literal Genesis creation story or in the events of Exodus, fine ... but don't extend that to come up with the idea that believing in a higher consciousness - which in and of itself is simply saying that you do not believe that the Universe (or whatever multiverse it might reside in) created itself out of nothing.  That is at least as fantastic of a scenario as some kind of intelligence residing outside of the four dimensions we can perceive, IMO.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Revelation is highly symbolic and metaphorical, but even if one interprets it as literally as possible, Rev 19:20 indicates that the Beast and the Pseudoprophet mentioned in Rev 20:10 are to be singled out for special treatment. Rev 20:13-14 has Thanatos and Hades giving up their dead and then being tossed into the lake of fire, indicating that those two are personifications of concepts rather than literal beings or places, so I think it most likely the case is also true of the Beast and the Pseudoprophet.  Moreover, the lake of fire is identified as the second death in Rev 20:14, yet Rev 21:4 states that when the new heaven and earth come to be, there will be no death, hence at that point there can be no lake of fire.  Hence the term "for eons of eons" in Rev 20:10 can't be interpreted as a literal "forever and ever" but as a figurative one.

Revelation is a difficult book to interpret, and I'll admit to areas where I'm uncertain of my interpretation of the text, which is why I restricted my reply to using passages from Revelation itself in this response. I think it best to show where taking Revelation on its own terms there are places where two passages cannot be both interpreted literally without causing contradictions. As I think I've shown, the case against annihilationism requires having the text contradict itself when treated as fully literal. That still leaves up to interpretation which passage or passages should be treated figuratively.

Also I share the doubts of Martin Luther as to whether it should have been included in the canon.  Still if apocalyptic literature be included in the New Testament, Revelation is one of the better examples.  It doesn't exult over the doom that awaits those who transgress as many examples of this form did.

[Cory]

Oh my God, THIS.  If you want to be flabbergasted by people's belief in the literal Genesis creation story or in the events of Exodus, fine ... but don't extend that to come up with the idea that believing in a higher consciousness - which in and of itself is simply saying that you do not believe that the Universe (or whatever multiverse it might reside in) created itself out of nothing.  That is at least as fantastic of a scenario as some kind of intelligence residing outside of the four dimensions we can perceive, IMO.

Except that's now what I'm talking about. You and Rockefeller GOP are phrasing this in a fallacious manner.

The idea that their might be a God type entity isn't "just like" thinking that Jesus is his only son and died for our sins and then was risen three days later. The latter is a ridiculous thing to believe. Basically thinking their is/might be a higher power is reasonable but actually believing in any of the major religions isn't really.

[RINO Tom]

Oh my God, THIS.  If you want to be flabbergasted by people's belief in the literal Genesis creation story or in the events of Exodus, fine ... but don't extend that to come up with the idea that believing in a higher consciousness - which in and of itself is simply saying that you do not believe that the Universe (or whatever multiverse it might reside in) created itself out of nothing.  That is at least as fantastic of a scenario as some kind of intelligence residing outside of the four dimensions we can perceive, IMO.

Except that's now what I'm talking about. You and Rockefeller GOP are phrasing this in a fallacious manner.

The idea that their might be a God type entity isn't "just like" thinking that Jesus is his only son and died for our sins and then was risen three days later. The latter is a ridiculous thing to believe. Basically thinking their is/might be a higher power is reasonable but actually believing in any of the major religions isn't really.

Fair enough, in this context, and I completely agree.  Now, if there were such a God-like intelligence, it could of course pretty much do anything, so it's of course possible that the miracles of the Bible actually happened if there is a God ... of course, that isn't necessarily a reason to believe in them.

Faith is a very personal thing, and I have no interest in trying to project my beliefs onto anyone else or really to even try to understand why someone's faith or lack of faith doesn't align perfectly with my point of view.