Ohio Transwoman killed, called "Satan"

[United Marxist Nations]

Some people can crack under pressure. We are flawed beings. I can't lie and say I am pure. Hell, I've attempted suicide before.

Keeping that in-mind, I would prefer if someone committed a sin they could take back, rather than one they don't have the chance to (of which suicide is one).

Still...what of when your morality is directly connected to why a person commits suicide, or what if it is a major contributing factor? If your morality plays a direct role in why a person commits an immoral action, or is severely damaged in their emotional and mental well-being, how is that something you rationalize?

I would simply think it were a great shame, but I would consider either the person committing the action, or, more likely, the community (for not providing support to those of us less fortunate) to be more at fault than any moral system.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why would it be morally wrong?

Both because it is an effort in futility and causes unnecessary suffering. And, even with the mindset in mind, it equates to worshiping gods who do not deserve to be worshiped.

Why are those things morally wrong?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Why would it be morally wrong?

Both because it is an effort in futility and causes unnecessary suffering. And, even with the mindset in mind, it equates to worshiping gods who do not deserve to be worshiped.

That's subjective and personal. The worshiping of gods. You may think that worshiping a god that condones sacrifice is undeserving of worship but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong to worship such a deity. It's just that in your personal set of values and morals, such a deity should not be worshiped.

[Noraika]

Still...what of when your morality is directly connected to why a person commits suicide, or what if it is a major contributing factor? If your morality plays a direct role in why a person commits an immoral action, or is severely damaged in their emotional and mental well-being, how is that something you rationalize?

I would simply think it were a great shame, but I would consider either the person committing the action, or, more likely, the community (for not providing support to those of us less fortunate) to be more at fault than any moral system.

You're still not answering the question, and I'm going to be quite direct here. When it is the MORALITY and its principles or teachings of which have been found to have been the main role in someone's death, and the pursuit and teachings of morality results in immoral actions, then how do you rationalize it? How can morality be moral, if it results in contradictory results and immoral actions?

I would hope that you'd at least be willing to recognize the harm the morality causes, and not shirk responsibility.

[Sanctissima]

Both because it is an effort in futility and causes unnecessary suffering. And, even with the mindset in mind, it equates to worshiping gods who do not deserve to be worshiped.

Why are those things morally wrong?

Because it causes suffering without any purpose.

[Sanctissima]

Both because it is an effort in futility and causes unnecessary suffering. And, even with the mindset in mind, it equates to worshiping gods who do not deserve to be worshiped.

That's subjective and personal. The worshiping of gods. You may think that worshiping a god that condones sacrifice is undeserving of worship but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong to worship such a deity. It's just that in your personal set of values and morals, such a deity should not be worshiped.

I did not claim that they weren't subjective, just that some subjective values are better than others.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I would simply think it were a great shame, but I would consider either the person committing the action, or, more likely, the community (for not providing support to those of us less fortunate) to be more at fault than any moral system.

You're still not answering the question, and I'm going to be quite direct here. When it is the MORALITY and its principles or teachings of which have been found to have been the main role in someone's death, and the pursuit and teachings of morality results in immoral actions, then how do you rationalize it? How can morality be moral, if it results in contradictory results and immoral actions?

I would hope that you'd at least be willing to recognize the harm the morality causes, and not shirk responsibility.

With a huge amount of mental gymnastics.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That's subjective and personal. The worshiping of gods. You may think that worshiping a god that condones sacrifice is undeserving of worship but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong to worship such a deity. It's just that in your personal set of values and morals, such a deity should not be worshiped.

I did not claim that they weren't subjective, just that some subjective values are better than others.

Are they, really? What makes the values of a Christian better than those of a Hindu, or a Jewish person if not subjectivity and personal taste?

[United Marxist Nations]

That's subjective and personal. The worshiping of gods. You may think that worshiping a god that condones sacrifice is undeserving of worship but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong to worship such a deity. It's just that in your personal set of values and morals, such a deity should not be worshiped.

I did not claim that they weren't subjective, just that some subjective values are better than others.

Then that's not subjectivity.

I would simply think it were a great shame, but I would consider either the person committing the action, or, more likely, the community (for not providing support to those of us less fortunate) to be more at fault than any moral system.

You're still not answering the question, and I'm going to be quite direct here. When it is the MORALITY and its principles or teachings of which have been found to have been the main role in someone's death, and the pursuit and teachings of morality results in immoral actions, then how do you rationalize it? How can morality be moral, if it results in contradictory results and immoral actions?

I would hope that you'd at least be willing to recognize the harm the morality causes, and not shirk responsibility.

I don't think it is possible. I think you are describing an impossibility. People are to blame for actions, not abstract forces and concepts.

[Sanctissima]

I did not claim that they weren't subjective, just that some subjective values are better than others.

Are they, really? What makes the values of a Christian better than those of a Hindu, or a Jewish person if not subjectivity and personal taste?

It depends on the value.

If the value is stoning adulterous women or expecting a widow to jump on their husband's funeral pyre, I'd say they're subjectively wrong. Pointless suffering is, as a rule of thumb, a good place to start drawing the line between right and wrong.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Are they, really? What makes the values of a Christian better than those of a Hindu, or a Jewish person if not subjectivity and personal taste?

It depends on the value.

If the value is stoning adulterous women or expecting a widow to jump on their husband's funeral pyre, I'd say they're subjectively wrong. Pointless suffering is, as a rule of thumb, a good place to start drawing the line between right and wrong.

But you see, you're calling it suffering. What if it isn't suffering for others?

[Sanctissima]

It depends on the value.

If the value is stoning adulterous women or expecting a widow to jump on their husband's funeral pyre, I'd say they're subjectively wrong. Pointless suffering is, as a rule of thumb, a good place to start drawing the line between right and wrong.

But you see, you're calling it suffering. What if it isn't suffering for others?

I imagine burning or being stoned to death involves quite a bit of suffering.

[Noraika]

You're still not answering the question, and I'm going to be quite direct here. When it is the MORALITY and its principles or teachings of which have been found to have been the main role in someone's death, and the pursuit and teachings of morality results in immoral actions, then how do you rationalize it? How can morality be moral, if it results in contradictory results and immoral actions?

I would hope that you'd at least be willing to recognize the harm the morality causes, and not shirk responsibility.

I don't think it is possible. I think you are describing an impossibility. People are to blame for actions, not abstract forces and concepts.

It is entirely possible. Morality is not just written word, but a huge part of it is the expectations it places upon us for living, and the behaviors we express, and the values we have.

Morality is, as you said yourself, the expectations we place upon ourselves, and morality is nothing outside of the context of people acting upon it. So when morality is being enacted, and followed and enforced by people, and taught to the people, and yet this worldview and this following of the moral guidelines leads to, or is a major contributing factor to, a person's death. It is an immoral result that stems from the practice of the morality.

Immorality through morality being the primary causation. A blatant contradiction of the entire goal. What happens then? Do we ignore it? Do we try and pretend that following the morality is not responsible? Do we claim that the individual action happened in a vacuum seperate from the context of the effects and influences of morality?

Or do we stop, think, and reconsider? When morality leads people directly into immorality isn't that something that is telling?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

But you see, you're calling it suffering. What if it isn't suffering for others?

I imagine burning or being stoned to death involves quite a bit of suffering.

Not necessarily if the person being burned or stoned thinks this is necessary for their set of values and morality.

Either way, to answer Noraika's question (I know it wasn't directed at me but, eh), I don't think there's any way to rationalize provoking the death or someone for something they didn't choose to experience. If you think that it is fair to kill a person who is transgender because of your religion, then you're a fuckwad that should be locked away from the rest of society.

[Noraika]

I imagine burning or being stoned to death involves quite a bit of suffering.

Not necessarily if the person being burned or stoned thinks this is necessary for their set of values and morality.

Either way, to answer Noraika's question (I know it wasn't directed at me but, eh), I don't think there's any way to rationalize provoking the death or someone for something they didn't choose to experience. If you think that it is fair to kill a person who is transgender because of your religion, then you're a fuckwad that should be locked away from the rest of society.

Not even necessarily that. Trying to force a transgender person to confrom to their sex assigned at birth is particularly medically unethical because of how ineffective it is whatsoever, and the negative effects it has on the individual.

In addition, one of the major driving factors behind the high rate of suicide of transgender people is lack of access to the necessary treatments that they need. In addition to this, another big one is rejection from family even if they do.

Growing up in a culture where the practice for transgender people is no medical care, no support from family or institutions, no recognition of their gender, and them being constantly told there's something wrong with them, and people trying to 'fix' them despite it being impossible and unethical, would likely make the current 41% attempted suicide rate sky-rocket, and would reverse the suicide rate decreases we've seen among other LGB+ groups.

That'd be 10% of society. Killing themselves in increased numbers (probably more than 50% of the time), as a direct result of the persistence in enforcing morality that brings about these conditions which bring them to try and take their own lives.

Unacceptable, and a plague of immorality that 'morality' is responsible for.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not necessarily if the person being burned or stoned thinks this is necessary for their set of values and morality.

Either way, to answer Noraika's question (I know it wasn't directed at me but, eh), I don't think there's any way to rationalize provoking the death or someone for something they didn't choose to experience. If you think that it is fair to kill a person who is transgender because of your religion, then you're a fuckwad that should be locked away from the rest of society.

Not even necessarily that. Trying to force a transgender person to confrom to their sex assigned at birth is particularly medically unethical because of how ineffective it is whatsoever, and the negative effects it has on the individual.

In addition, one of the major driving factors behind the high rate of suicide of transgender people is lack of access to the necessary treatments that they need. In addition to this, another big one is rejection from family even if they do.

Growing up in a culture where the practice for transgender people is no medical care, no support from family or institutions, no recognition of their gender, and them being constantly told there's something wrong with them, and people trying to 'fix' them despite it being impossible and unethical, would likely make the current 41% attempted suicide rate sky-rocket, and would reverse the suicide rate decreases we've seen among other LGB+ groups.

That'd be 10% of society. Killing themselves in increased numbers (probably more than 50% of the time), as a direct result of the persistence in enforcing morality that brings about these conditions which bring them to try and take their own lives.

Unacceptable, and a plague of immorality that 'morality' is responsible for.

It is quite shameful that one of the most humiliated communities in our society is that of transgender people.

[United Marxist Nations]

Not necessarily if the person being burned or stoned thinks this is necessary for their set of values and morality.

Either way, to answer Noraika's question (I know it wasn't directed at me but, eh), I don't think there's any way to rationalize provoking the death or someone for something they didn't choose to experience. If you think that it is fair to kill a person who is transgender because of your religion, then you're a fuckwad that should be locked away from the rest of society.

Not even necessarily that. Trying to force a transgender person to confrom to their sex assigned at birth is particularly medically unethical because of how ineffective it is whatsoever, and the negative effects it has on the individual.

In addition, one of the major driving factors behind the high rate of suicide of transgender people is lack of access to the necessary treatments that they need. In addition to this, another big one is rejection from family even if they do.

Growing up in a culture where the practice for transgender people is no medical care, no support from family or institutions, no recognition of their gender, and them being constantly told there's something wrong with them, and people trying to 'fix' them despite it being impossible and unethical, would likely make the current 41% attempted suicide rate sky-rocket, and would reverse the suicide rate decreases we've seen among other LGB+ groups.

That'd be 10% of society. Killing themselves in increased numbers (probably more than 50% of the time), as a direct result of the persistence in enforcing morality that brings about these conditions which bring them to try and take their own lives.

Unacceptable, and a plague of immorality that 'morality' is responsible for.

I've never said anything about trying to "fix" people, and I suspect that is where we had miscommunication. When I say 'classes', I mean things like classes and, if the person is having difficulty, getting them emotional help, not conversion "therapy".

Also, as I have said in the past, on the issue of transgender issues, I am open to it being used as a last resort to avoid suicide, because (like I said earlier), I'd rather someone perform a sin that can be repented of than one they are unable to repent of.

[Noraika]

I've never said anything about trying to "fix" people, and I suspect that is where we had miscommunication. When I say 'classes', I mean things like classes and, if the person is having difficulty, getting them emotional help, not conversion "therapy".

Also, as I have said in the past, on the issue of transgender issues, I am open to it being used as a last resort to avoid suicide, because (like I said earlier), I'd rather someone perform a sin that can be repented of than one they are unable to repent of.

Firstly, define the content of these classes. Secondly, seeking out mental healthcare and therapy are nearly universal among the transgender population, especially among those that later progress to transitioning. In fact, its pretty much universally required.

There's nothing wrong with transgender people, if anything they're a sign that man, in his limited, at the time, understanding of the universe, was not able to properly articulate the great diversity of gender and sexuality that God created in his Infinite glory. This is to be expected, as mankind is not only faliable, but also only really able to articulate properly that which they already understand or comprehend.

Thirdly, explain why transitioning, which has been shown in meta-analysis to be an overwhelmingly positive thing in a transgender person's life, should be delayed, which has been shown to be an overwhelmingly negative and damaging thing? Trying to get a transgender person to conform to their birth sex is very much medically unethical because its completely ineffective, and trying to pretend that the issue will go away, that it will change the results or need, or that preventing proper treatment until its so bad a person is ready to kill themselves (something no one should be made to experience) is somehow better than giving them proper treatment from the beginning, and helping them be the gender God made them to be, is, to me, utterly nonsensical and utterly despicable.

I'm sorry, but I will not hold back on my wording there. Advocating for transgender people to be cut off from necessary medical care, and putting up severely medically unethical and arbitrary restrictions for access to care, which isn't going to change the number of people who'll need it anyways, is just utterly narrow-minded, selfish, despicable, callous, uncaring, un-Christian, and would result in suffering, agony, pain, torment. It sounds more like the desires of Satan than the will of God, to see transgender people, God's children all the same, reduced to such pain and suffering.

[United Marxist Nations]

I've never said anything about trying to "fix" people, and I suspect that is where we had miscommunication. When I say 'classes', I mean things like classes and, if the person is having difficulty, getting them emotional help, not conversion "therapy".

Also, as I have said in the past, on the issue of transgender issues, I am open to it being used as a last resort to avoid suicide, because (like I said earlier), I'd rather someone perform a sin that can be repented of than one they are unable to repent of.

1) Firstly, define the content of these classes. Secondly, seeking out mental healthcare and therapy are nearly universal among the transgender population, especially among those that later progress to transitioning. 2) In fact, its pretty much universally required.

There's nothing wrong with transgender people, if anything they're a sign that man, in his limited, at the time, understanding of the universe, was not able to properly articulate the great diversity of gender and sexuality that God created in his Infinite glory. This is to be expected, as mankind is not only faliable, but also only really able to articulate properly that which they already understand or comprehend.

3) Thirdly, explain why transitioning, which has been shown in meta-analysis to be an overwhelmingly positive thing in a transgender person's life, should be delayed, which has been shown to be an overwhelmingly negative and damaging thing? Trying to get a transgender person to conform to their birth sex is very much medically unethical because its completely ineffective, and trying to pretend that the issue will go away, that it will change the results or need, or that preventing proper treatment until its so bad a person is ready to kill themselves (something no one should be made to experience) is somehow better than giving them proper treatment from the beginning, 4) and helping them be the gender God made them to be, is, to me, utterly nonsensical and utterly despicable.

I'm sorry, but I will not hold back on my wording there. Advocating for transgender people to be cut off from necessary medical care, and putting up severely medically unethical and arbitrary restrictions for access to care, which isn't going to change the number of people who'll need it anyways, is just utterly narrow-minded, selfish, despicable, callous, uncaring, un-Christian, and would result in suffering, agony, pain, torment. It sounds more like the desires of Satan than the will of God.

1) Basic teachings of morality and the theology behind our understanding of morality, as well as techniques that help with maintaining moral behavior (e.g. prayer, grounding exercises).
2) Why would it be near-universally required if it is not an illness?
3) Because, frankly, it is an affront to the creation of the sexes.
4) The soul and body are complimentary, if one is created a sex, that is the sex they are meant to be, whether they were created with burdens or no.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

1) Firstly, define the content of these classes. Secondly, seeking out mental healthcare and therapy are nearly universal among the transgender population, especially among those that later progress to transitioning. 2) In fact, its pretty much universally required.

There's nothing wrong with transgender people, if anything they're a sign that man, in his limited, at the time, understanding of the universe, was not able to properly articulate the great diversity of gender and sexuality that God created in his Infinite glory. This is to be expected, as mankind is not only faliable, but also only really able to articulate properly that which they already understand or comprehend.

3) Thirdly, explain why transitioning, which has been shown in meta-analysis to be an overwhelmingly positive thing in a transgender person's life, should be delayed, which has been shown to be an overwhelmingly negative and damaging thing? Trying to get a transgender person to conform to their birth sex is very much medically unethical because its completely ineffective, and trying to pretend that the issue will go away, that it will change the results or need, or that preventing proper treatment until its so bad a person is ready to kill themselves (something no one should be made to experience) is somehow better than giving them proper treatment from the beginning, 4) and helping them be the gender God made them to be, is, to me, utterly nonsensical and utterly despicable.

I'm sorry, but I will not hold back on my wording there. Advocating for transgender people to be cut off from necessary medical care, and putting up severely medically unethical and arbitrary restrictions for access to care, which isn't going to change the number of people who'll need it anyways, is just utterly narrow-minded, selfish, despicable, callous, uncaring, un-Christian, and would result in suffering, agony, pain, torment. It sounds more like the desires of Satan than the will of God.

1) Basic teachings of morality and the theology behind our understanding of morality, as well as techniques that help with maintaining moral behavior (e.g. prayer, grounding exercises).
2) Why would it be near-universally required if it is not an illness?
3) Because, frankly, it is an affront to the creation of the sexes.
4) The soul and body are complimentary, if one is created a sex, that is the sex they are meant to be, whether they were created with burdens or no.

4) Psychology and Psychiatry need to have a word with you. You're mixing your beliefs here and contradicting/ignoring years of research and data that state otherwise.

[Noraika]

1) Basic teachings of morality and the theology behind our understanding of morality, as well as techniques that help with maintaining moral behavior (e.g. prayer, grounding exercises).
2) Why would it be near-universally required if it is not an illness?
3) Because, frankly, it is an affront to the creation of the sexes.
4) The soul and body are complimentary, if one is created a sex, that is the sex they are meant to be, whether they were created with burdens or no.

Okay, and how would this resolve any of the issues that I've described? Are you simply complacent, and willing to let as many people suffer as is necessary before you are ready to admit that maybe your interpretation of your beliefs is wrong? I really hope you are not this willing to follow beliefs so blinding, in the face of all the suffering and death they've already left in their wake.

You have not answered the question, and I will not answer until you answer mine, and yet we return to the same question as before. When the morality laid before us, and which we accept as God's word, results in the opposite results through its following and enforcing His law. Can the laws of God bring about the purposeful suffering of his children, and lead them to commit immoral actions? Within God there is no immorality, and immorality cannot be achieved if one is following God. If God's morality leads people to immorality than isn't that a sign that perhaps this should be reexamined.

Finally, and please treat this as a separate question, who is to say that God created gender and sex, and humankind has merely been to ignorant to see it until half a century ago? Why must we assume that the mankind of thousands of years ago was able to fully comprehend the grand design of Gods creation, and write it accurately despite their lack of knowledge or comprehension of such things, when we're just now understanding even the basic constructs of how it operates, and so much about the natural, God created, diversity not only in nature, but in human beings and their sexuality and gender identity, as well?

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Basic teachings of morality and the theology behind our understanding of morality, as well as techniques that help with maintaining moral behavior (e.g. prayer, grounding exercises).
2) Why would it be near-universally required if it is not an illness?
3) Because, frankly, it is an affront to the creation of the sexes.
4) The soul and body are complimentary, if one is created a sex, that is the sex they are meant to be, whether they were created with burdens or no.

Okay, and how would this resolve any of the issues that I've described? Are you simply complacent, and willing to let as many people suffer as is necessary before you are ready to admit that maybe your interpretation of your beliefs is wrong? I really hope you are not this willing to follow beliefs so blinding, in the face of all the suffering and death they've already left in their wake.

You have not answered the question, and I will not answer until you answer mine, and yet we return to the same question as before. When the morality laid before us, and which we accept as God's word, results in the opposite results through its following and enforcing His law. Can the laws of God bring about the purposeful suffering of his children, and lead them to commit immoral actions? Within God there is no immorality, and immorality cannot be achieved if one is following God. If God's morality leads people to immorality than isn't that a sign that perhaps this should be reexamined.

Finally, and please treat this as a separate question, who is to say that God created gender and sex, and humankind has merely been to ignorant to see it until half a century ago? Why must we assume that the mankind of thousands of years ago was able to fully comprehend the grand design of Gods creation, and write it accurately despite their lack of knowledge or comprehension of such things, when we're just now understanding even the basic constructs of how it operates, and so much about the natural, God created, diversity not only in nature, but in human beings and their sexuality and gender identity, as well?

It is not morality which is bringing the suffering, it is mankind's sinful nature.

Because there is a great deal of teachings from the early Church on the complimentary nature of the sexes. I would say that perversions of creation, such as lust (including homosexuality, but of any kind whatsoever), and neurological abnormalities (e.g. mental illnesses) are consequences of original sin.

[Noraika]

It is not morality which is bringing the suffering, it is mankind's sinful nature.

Because there is a great deal of teachings from the early Church on the complimentary nature of the sexes. I would say that perversions of creation, such as lust (including homosexuality, but of any kind whatsoever), and neurological abnormalities (e.g. mental illnesses) are consequences of original sin.

Except what happens when suffering is brought through humankinds following of the morality set forward to them by God? What when that is the major factor. When God's law and its enforcement is what brings about, and is the major direct reason, for immorality, then it is not separatable.

Okay, so how did the early church comprehend the nature of universe more than mortal, failable humans thousands of years ago. There is so much we know now, and so much more we have yet to know, about the nature of God's creation in comparison to those times, and our understanding of it shows us sexuality and gender identity being natural and non-pathological elements of human beings. When we learn that positive and fulfilling lives are the result of accepting this fact, and suffering and suicide are the results of not accepting it....

...did not Jesus say that one could tell if something (in this case) was of the Holy Father by its fruits?

[United Marxist Nations]

It is not morality which is bringing the suffering, it is mankind's sinful nature.

Because there is a great deal of teachings from the early Church on the complimentary nature of the sexes. I would say that perversions of creation, such as lust (including homosexuality, but of any kind whatsoever), and neurological abnormalities (e.g. mental illnesses) are consequences of original sin.

Except what happens when suffering is brought through humankinds following of the morality set forward to them by God? What when that is the major factor. When God's law and its enforcement is what brings about, and is the major direct reason, for immorality, then it is not separatable.

Okay, so how did the early church comprehend the nature of universe more than mortal, failable humans thousands of years ago. There is so much we know now, and so much more we have yet to know, about the nature of God's creation in comparison to those times, and our understanding of it shows us sexuality and gender identity being natural and non-pathological elements of human beings. When we learn that positive and fulfilling lives are the result of accepting this fact, and suffering and suicide are the results of not accepting it....

...did not Jesus say that one could tell if something (in this case) was of the Holy Father by its fruits?

People being sad that they shouldn't sin is the fault of sin, not morality. That much is obvious.

The early Church was taught by the Apostles, who were in-turn taught by Christ Himself.

[Noraika]

People being sad that they shouldn't sin is the fault of sin, not morality. That much is obvious.

The early Church was taught by the Apostles, who were in-turn taught by Christ Himself.

Does not negate the point. Gender Dysphoria being levied as 'sad' is about as accurate as call the day, night. In addition, I would say its far more severe than just 'wanting to sin', if people are killing themselves over it. I would recommend you research the topic.

And the Apostles, while wise and examples of what Christians should strive for, are still just men, and these men, while taught, are only able to comprehend what they understand, and able to express only that which they know what to express. I see no reason this refutes anything said before, which is that, in our increased (although still tiny) understanding of God's glorious creation compared to thousands of years ago, why is it surprising that we uncover even more of God's creation and grow in our understanding.

Truly the old church, and even the apostles did not know or understand the universe. Truly we can be assured that even with the guidance of Jesus there were things beyond the Apostles conprehension at the time, such as gender identity, gravity, atmosphere, medicinal knowledge, sexuality, the nature of the world as a planet, the size and scope of universe. All sorts of things they were ignorant of, so we shouldn't limit ourselves to ONLY their understanding.

Once again, and treat this as a separate question, did not Gods only son, Jesus the Messiah, say that we are able to tell what is of the father by its fruits? When the fruits of one thing is resulting in death and suffering, and the results of embracing God's gloriously diverse creation, and celebrating it, is life and fulfillment, then what is of God?