Re: Loquat...

Was just joking with that one about Christ multi-tasking. But I honestly think it is demented to think he'll be watching the unbelievers suffer for all eternity. Just my opinion.

Then I must be demented. Not the first time ever I've been accused of that. However, for one who understands the symbolic nature of apocalyptic, you seem to take it surprisingly literally when it suits your agenda. It need mean no more than that nothing is out of His purview: 

And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account.

Hebrews 4:13

I don't like the term annihilation, like you don't like certain terms. But you started using that term, so I did. But I'd like to go back to the terms the bible uses, perish, destroy, etc.

Fine by me, but again I make the point that these English words are an inadequate translation of the original Gk words, which do not permit you to conclude that whatever is 'destroyed' thereby ceases to exist. The underlying meaning is much more akin, for example, to 'destroying' a vase by accidentally knocking it off its mount and breaking it. It is no longer fit for purpose, worthless, wasted, trashed, etc - but it still exists, even if only as a hundred pieces. In theory, I could dejectedly sweep them all up, glue them all back together, and presto chango - I have my vase back again. But of course it can never be the same again.

It might have been worth $500k before I 'destroyed' it, but it's now a piece of junk that could double-up as an ashtray when no one is looking. It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch, but it's a lot closer to the truth than your false idea of complete destruction to the point of non-existence. I'm afraid it's a lot more subtle than that, and provides a good illustration of the problems translators face when trying to extract 'full value' equivalence from an ancient language.

Please note my efforts to avoid using the word 'annihilation', though in practice, that is exactly what you are advocating. I'm not surprised you don't like it. There are good reasons for disliking the term 'amillennialism', and I can assure you that none of them have anything to do with its descriptive accuracy or ability to convey real content. On the contrary, your problem with 'annihilation' is that it is too accurate a description of what you're defending. Explicit maybe, but honest nonetheless.

So do you think perishable can mean immortal?

Please see explanation above, and if that still doesn't make my meaning clear, I'll be more than happy to give you actual examples from the NT itself, even if it means anticipating a future rebuttal.