I get what you're saying Tim, (or at least I think I do- I get what I get, if you get my drift) and I am not stating adamantly that for sure and without speculation that the soul is either immortal or eternal (and I am very clear on the difference and the inference) but what I'm trying to say is that-

To categorically state that there is a soul and that it is immortal first you have to believe and clarify that there is a soul and that it is 'you' or some similar all-encompassing part of you.

Then you have to ask- is my soul my earthly perceptions or is my soul some sort of transcendent entity that is also 'me'? And then, I ask you, what is the purpose of having a soul that is transcendent (that is, that consists of more than your ego, your id, your experiences, and whatever you've learned- your perceptions?) If all of this dies with you, then what is the purpose of surviving the loss of your body and temporal existence if you are eventually going to stop existing altogether?

It seems like a big waste of energy, or information, and from what I gather, the universe doesn't appear to be wasteful- and dare I use the 'God' Word- why would God go through all the trouble of devising a system so rich only to do ultimately nothing with it?

This is why I think, that even though I don't know ultimately if there even is a soul, it seems to me that it would at least be immortal, if not eternal. If not, then there must not be a soul, because IMO transcendence is part of the definition.

Now, what I say to the OP is this- why would someone go to the trouble of preaching that the soul can be destroyed 'if you don't toe the line?' sounds like the motive is suspect, at least to me.