regarding torture without end being the antithesis of mercy, the definition of hell is a place that is void of god's love. that's the whole point. hell is the place where those who want nothing to do with god go in satisfaction of that desire.
Sure. C S Lewis made the same argument in his book "The Great Divorce"; "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside." One could also argue that all of the colourful descriptions of the nature of Hell in the Bible are simply symptoms of the absence of God's love and that it is absent not because it has been withheld but rather, because it has been rejected.
But why is it, then, that unbelievers are not suffering in the same way already? Is it because they haven't truly rejected God? But what about those who have committed the unforgivable sin of Blasphemy? It appears that the consequences of rejecting God begin in death, or on the last day when we are all judged, and not in life.
This presents a problem. How many people have such hatred toward God that they would rather lock themselves in Hell rather than try to find it within themselves to accept him? And how many people would choose to hold onto that hatred and resentment for all eternity instead of seeking God's mercy? Not many, I would imagine. But how do you reconcile this with the fact that the Bible teaches that only a handful will be saved?
It's pretty clear that the fact that a person hasn't completely rejected God is not enough to ensure salvation. You have to properly accept him in life, or suffer the consequences. At least that is what the Bible clearly teaches, and it brings us right back to the question of mercy.