Thanks. I like it.
Others:
Some humans opt to live in harms way.
So, in what way do these storms or "natural disasters"deter folks from being peacefull? Usually disasters cause more folks to be compassionate and empathetic.
We are clearly stuck. In my head you are failing to address the points I raise. In your head you’re not failing at all.
We can now only leave it to others to decide for themselves [given an autononous universe] who comes closer.
Still, what does count [here in particular] is not what you can demonstrate to be true but what you believe is true…reflecting that which as far as you are concerned is demonstration enough.
If you are able to embed a sense of identity in what you believe, fine. And if what you believe comforts and consoles you, you’re that much further ahead in what I myself construe to be an essentially meaningless [and often very, very painful] world that ends in oblivion.
Now it’s just a matter of what comes next. New experiences, new relationships, new information and knowledge. Your “real me” in sync with the “right way to think about all of this” will either follow you to the grave or it won’t.
Then, in the interim, you are calculating from day to day your value and your worth in the context of all there is.
The part about dasein, from my frame of mind. Though others disagree.
Are you actually suggesting here that what many construe to be an omnipotent God is off the hook in the Bahamas because those folks chose to live there?
And that those who survived the utter devastation of their homeland now have the opportunity to display empathy and compassion. Thanks to God.
Look, I recognize that my own emotional reaction to all this is embedded [psychologically] in the fact that in my No God world, these terrible things happen and I don’t have a God around to blame. They just happen because shit happens going back to however one is able to understand and to explain existence itself.
The brute “facticity” of it all and what appears to be an utterly futile attempt on the part of mere mortals to master it.
And yes, while rain brings birth in some contexts, floods bring death in others.
Counter ~~
Have I been made for this, to lie under the blankets and keep myself warm?
Marcus Aurelius
Not letting anybody off the hook; but if you need somebody to blame. . .Why not blame Nature?, " Nature is red in tooth and claw."–Tennyson, contra Wordsworth.
Where are the koans?
Provocative insight.
In that vein–
A blanket statement has no need of proof,
For it is warm and snugly covers truth.
He is one who I might have enjoyed sitting down with and having a cup of coffee with or a glass of wine. I suppose in a way I still can. But too one-sided. 
Like a safe cocoon.
Thought you might. Great.
The teacher must leave in order for the student to learn.
See Kierkegaard’s “Gospel of Suffering”
Thats a valuable insight.
Yes, the student must first be free to object to all he has heard, and by his own resources, address all that he objects to and therefrom learn what these obtrusive notions really mean. A notion is only proto-knowledge, it must first be… valued by the student in his own terms, integrated into some living reality, take on value.
“Value” is far juicier than there analytics would have it.
Heidegger is the philosophy of grass.
Which is a really good start for a farm. Which is a really good start for an Idea.
An Idea is just a really big farm.
No, I meant, which is a good basis for a civilization. A civilization occurs between farmlands.
One might say Indians (Americans) had culture, but didn’t bring about a civilization. WL said to understand culture and civilization as opposites.
In fact they did farm the continent but by more natural means - they created the prairies by setting fire each spring and fall to the woods. In the early colonial time one could say; up the Hudson between the burning banks on both sides.
Human life was once real, when there were still Encounters…
Now only philosophy, or aliens can save us.
Well, perhaps your own understanding of God does not include the part where He created nature. In other words, when He created Earth and all the rest.
In law, they speak of “acts of God”:
“In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible.”
I must be misunderstanding your point here.
Even if the human species does manage to meld with sky and earth and forge an everlasting peace here on planet Earth, the earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis and tornados and floods etc., will still be around. Not to mention extinction events hurtling down from the heavens above when the next Big One strikes.
IMHO, you and I are “acts of God”. What do we do about natural and human disasters?
Natural disasters, in or time, may be Nature crying," Rape!"
We have run out of avatars? Are none being planted in this infertile soil?
I think the soil has to be ploughed, first.
Minerals, struck in old stale formations, tossed around.
But I don’t want this to be some yuge apocalyptic war.
Nietzche tossed it around between Husserl and Kierkegaard, inadvertently beyond uniform space time, and it already caused cataclysm.
That is what all the excitement of about a reexamination of Nietzche’s relevance in phenomenological crossed reference to Husserls.
Some would indicate a sabbatical without portfolio,( but that would entail some presumptions of weakness by others)- just to try to brush up on that.
Again, from my frame of mind, the irony here is simply staggering!
God created these natural disasters. Why? Because they are built right into the creation of planet Earth itself. “Natural disasters” that, over the centuries, have maimed, mutilated and brutally massacred countless thousands – millions – of men, women and children. And, in fact, when these “acts of God” occur many mere mortals have done everything that they possibly could do to relieve the pain and suffering. Pain and suffering that their “loving just and merciful” Creator brought into existence in the first place.
Explanation?
Well, what else is there [still] but to put their faith in God’s “mysterious ways”; and to accept that their only recourse is [still] God if they want immortality and salvation.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? “In or time”?
Edit:
Okay, I think you meant, “in our time”. But what difference does it make what time [historically] they occur? Who [ultimately] is doing the raping if not God?
It seems to make sense only to the extent that one is arguing that nature and God are not one and the same.
A little help from others here, please.
Nature is created by a god , and god was not created. Nature is phenominal
God is nominal . By that it is meant that god is who he is. He is himself, a spiritual entity, unbounded even by or of himself.
Granted, in the beginning was the word, and in the vernacular of the apprebendable this is axiomatic.
There is no other, logically or descriptively.