I'm wondering what people on here think is the line that someone must cross to become truly irredeemable, the point at which you think a person should be killed. So, fire away.
The point at which he is trying to kill me or someone else whom I have reason to believe is not threatening his life. At that moment, he is irredeemable. Yet, if he drops the gun (or whatever), he is redeemable again.Froggy Slayer said:I'm wondering what people on here think is the line that someone must cross to become truly irredeemable, the point at which you think a person should be killed.
then at no point was he really irredeemable, as that means 'not redeemable'. If he can be redeemed if he drops the gun, then he is redeemable, he just has to begin with losing the gun. it just seems to be a misuse of the term irredeemable.JimB said:The point at which he is trying to kill me or someone else whom I have reason to believe is not threatening his life. At that moment, he is irredeemable. Yet, if he drops the gun (or whatever), he is redeemable again.Froggy Slayer said:I'm wondering what people on here think is the line that someone must cross to become truly irredeemable, the point at which you think a person should be killed.
Redemption and damnation are not permanent states of being.
I know someone who raped a friend of mine, and was never brought to light.Matthew94 said:What if the person was a sexual predator of people who abused children?Phasmal said:I guess when they don't want redemption?
That's my nice answer, but honestly - I don't think sexual predators or people who abuse children are redeemable.