WE IGNORE WHAT SIN IS.

Besides the fact that the claim that when one is thrown in hell that person's earth is spoiled is nonsense,  what makes you think that you speak for all of us -- as you are claiming in your use of "we" -- and that none of us are smart enough to know that fire burns?

Dear Baldwin,
When one sins, he changes his earth into hell. Read it again with some depth.
We are small like children, and we don't know that fire hurts like them.
WHERE IS YOUR POETIC IMAGINATION, MY FRIEND BALDWIN?

Sorry,  but you said that one changes one's earth into hell only after one has left the earth.  Mote importantly, if we are like small children who do not know that fire burns (i.e. who have not yet attained the use of reason),  then, as Aquinas acknowledged, we cannot be held responsible for sins we commit.

My perception of what you have written is due not to my failure to read it with "some depth",  but to your failure to write well, not to mention without the paternalism that is characteristic of your pieces..

How tiring for J-Z
to be (as he presents himself
with constancy) one of the few,
if not the only man,
within the fallen world who’s pure,
and who alone has eyes to see
how always selfishly, in sin,
and moved by seething greed,
his fellow humans act.
And there’s his claim
(implicit as it is)
that he is gifted, so unlike
his kith and kin or any other member
of mankind, to ken, to know,
what’s truly on God’s mind.
Poor you, you over-burdened Syrian!

Indeed it's very hard to exchange opinions with you. You reflect what you have in you on other people.

Another dodge of my remarks.   And another piece of evidence that you are incapable of dealing directly with them.  Did you or did you not say that one changes one's earth into hell only after one has left the earth?  Yes or no.

Is it or is it not true that if we are like small children who do not know that fire burns (i.e. who have not yet attained the use of reason),  then, as Aquinas acknowledged, we cannot be held responsible for sins we commit?

1- The first paragraph: No, l didn't.
2- The second paragraph: l agree with Saint Aquinas.
3-Why all these complications? I think just to spoil the beauty of the poem.

"Why all these complications? I think just to spoil the beauty of the poem."

You are assuming what is not in evidence -- i.e., that the "poem" possesses beauty.

Do you think it is impossible for you to write poorly?  Do you think that your pieces are never without beauty?

And BTW,  the units of a poem are not paragraphs.

Baldwin, l mean a PARAGRAPH of your message, and not the stanzas of my poem. You are very nervous. What's the matter with you?

The only person here that has something wrong with him is you -- in once again not having the courage to directly answer the yes or no questions asked of him about his capacity for writing well and whether he thinks that his pieces always possess beauty.

Look at your last message to me, the one before this one, and correct its first line. Are you all right Baldwin?

What are you talking about?  The first line of that message is something **you** wrote.  In any case, this is yet another dodge.  You've not only not shown that anything I wrote needs to be corrected, but failed to take into account that how correct or incorrect grammatically or otherwise anything I wrote might be has nothing to do with whether or not **you** think you are incapable of writing poorly and whether you think the pieces you submit here always contain beauty.

Baldwin, l feel it's useless to speak with you.

Another dodge.

There is no evidence
that “we” ignore what’s plainly sin.
Just ask the college students on
the Spring break shores
who stated consciously
and knowing how they easily
could be engaged in dealing death
not only to themselves
but to their families
and others of their ilk,
they didn’t care
if they should come to bear
the virus plaguing old and young
and then go on
to make it rampant more than ever
everywhere.