Timotheos, Wile E., grulz, et al, the problem with this doctrine, like most any doctrine, is that it is impossible to "prove" either side. The only way to prove a doctrine is if there are no other possible interpretations for those "proof texts." Those of us on our side of the fence need to recognize that it is indeed possible that someone can be both dead and destroyed while still alive and those on the other side of the fence need to recognize that it is at least possible that eternal destruction can be a destruction with an eternal result (just as with the term "eternal salvation" being salvation with an eternal result) and not a process of destruction that is eternal for that soul.
One thing I think we can say, and I think an honest proponent of the other side would admit, that the terms used by them are not taken in their most normal understanding, as can be seen by the Humpty Dumpty piece. In other words, if we are going to just look at all of the uses of those terms they at face value support our side. This, I hope, would cause them to ask why they must insist that they be taken they way they do. Then I would hope they also look at the two strongest scriptures they use, the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and the ones in Revelation about the smoke of their torment rising, and realize their interpretation is not the only valid or logical one, that it's at least possible that the smoke is forever because the fire is forever and the "fuel supply" (people dying and going to hell) is forever, but those being tossed in aren't necessarily burning forever. Whether they agree with that interpretation is one thing, but hopefully they can at least recognize another valid interpretation. I'm not sure everybody here is willing to do that.
Which brings me to the point of this post. Why are they not even willing to recognize other interpretations? And if they do recognize them as valid WHY IN GOD'S HOLY NAME DO THEY STILL INTERPRET the scriptures in such a way that makes God out to be a monster? Why wouldn't this in and of itself cause them to say to themselves, "Ya know, ECT isn't mandated by scriptures, in fact, if we just use the terms normally as the Humpty Dumpty piece lays them out, we wouldn't come to that position, so why have I? Why would I use something out of a highly symbolic book like Revelation that nobody can agree on as to what it really means, and perhaps the story of Lazarus is there to each us that we only have one life to respond to God's word and the details were there only to make a story, much like any parable, and weren't put there to teach us about what it's like in hell.
Doesn't the whole idea of a loving and just God cause people to find a way to reject a doctrine that makes God out to be not only unjust but cruel beyond measure?
I guess not, for they continue to defend this doctrine even though they can't really "prove" it, for the reasons I spelled out in the beginning of this post.
ECT proponents (and opponents), are you really here to grow in grace and truth or are you here to just play "gotcha" with the scriptures?
