THE  COMPENSATION

What's your evidence that supports the claim you make above that every man (bot not any woman) who leaves his place of birth (or longtime home) to reside elsewhere will always see Jesus when he gets to his new abode?

I said when he goes to death land. Haven't you read it? Or you want just to criticize. How can you write such words. I haven't seen a person like you . You write just for the sake of writing whether there is meaning or not.

I can write such words because you haven't made clear what you are talking about.    
 
So, going abroad is dying,  and dying is going abroad?    
   
If you meant to say something about what the compensation for dying is,  why did you write the first stanza, the subject of which is how difficult it might be for some to get used to living in a new place on earth, not what the compensation for dying is.   If you meant to say that the person who dies initially feels something akin to what the person who leaves home feels before he gets used to his new situation,  you haven't done so.  
   
More importantly, what makes you certain not only that there IS a "death land"  (an odd phrase if it means a place where one still has life),  that Jesus is there (where ever this "death land" is) and not, say,  the houri or Odin and his kin,  and that all who die go to that particular place where Jesus is reputedly to be seen?  Lots of Christian theology says that many who die do not end up in such a place,  but in an existence that is void of heaven, and so will not be compensated with the beatific vision.

Much like the man who’s shattered by  
his leaving all his family far  
behind him when he finally uproots himself  
from his ancestral home  
to settle as an unknown in a stranger’s  town,  
shall not the one who dies and wakens  
in the after life  
(assuming there is one) then find himself  
quite overcome with grief  
and painfully nostalgic, pining,  for the warmth  
he knew from those he loved,  
who loved him too,  
within his little sojourn on the earth?  
 
For he, no longer corporal,  
and living in the realm of concrete space  
and passing time, will be, by death,  
bereft of this, deprived as well of all  
the god blessed kindling sensuality  
that living flesh is heir to.  
 
But surely, some will say, that there  
will be some offsetting great advantages  
in being discarnate abroad  
in death land hills and vales.  
For will he not then  automatically  
be privy to the vision beatific?  
 
Well, that depends.  
What evidence have we that there  
is something to experience beyond the veil?  
And if there is that that this experience is one  
that’s full of happiness?  
The answer’s “none”.  
Assertion is not proof, nor are appeals  
to what is said in someone’s holy writ.  
 
And isn’t there the chance,  if gods  
are dwelling there above,  
it’s their intent to make those entering  
the “heavenly” abode subject to enormous pain,  
to leave them all alone and sentenced to  
perpetually writhe and wail?

Your paraphrasing in prose in the form of poetry is a proof that my rhythmic poetry "trochaic hexameter" which l am sure you can't write, is clear in meaning, and anyone can understand it. Thank you for paraphrasing it.

Please provide evidence for your claim that my iambic laden piece on the same subject as yours is prose.  
 
And the issue isn't whether your piece can be clearly **understood** (it can't without a reader filling in some blanks and accepting your pious and unsubstantiated claims about an afterlife and who is there) .  It is whether your piece is written well and conveys what you were trying to say without a reader having to guess at what you were trying to say.  

By the way,  are you now saying that things not written in trochaic meter (which yours is not consistently set in) are not poetry?

1- You say your paraphrasing is an iambic laden piece. Actually, there is some poor iambic in it as you stress the unstressed, and vice versa. All your paraphrasing is full of that.
2- ls the second line iambic? You check it.
3- l didn't say say that what's not written in TROCHAIC HEXAMETER is not poetry. I said my piece is in this form. I asked you if you can write a poem in this form.

His LEAVing ALL his FAMly FAR.

Yes, it is iambic.

And my piece is not a paraphrase of yours.  Ir expresses a meaning other than what you tried (but failed) to convey.

But according to your criteria of what poetry is -- a writing that possesses rhythm, rhyme, and good phrasing,-- you cannot deny that my piece is poetry without being a hypocrite.

Dear Baldwin,
The second line is iambic, if you don't pronounce the"shwa" in the word family.

Where else besides L2 is the meter off in your eyes?  And do you think that your piece is consistently and  unimpeachably trochaic ?  I'm not sure it can be given that you have several 11 syllable lines.

Dear Baldwin,
You will be surprised to read that l missed you in the last few days when l didn't receive a message from you. My skin has got accustomed to your whipping criticism. I like you, Baldwin. Let's keep in touch, and you can criticize as severely as you can, but don't stop writing to me.
There are several lines of poor iambic in your poem. You go through it again, and you will find them. Won't you tell me your real name, friend?

I asked you where **you** saw poor iambic.  It's your claim that it's there.  So it's **your** job, not mine,  to provide the evidence that supports it.