deepundergroundpoetry.com
WHAT IS TRUE LOVE?
WHAT IS TRUE LOVE?
What is true love?
It is the feelings that exist towards someone.
You give that person all your life.
You reach a state in which you lose
your value and all men's respect,
but you don't care.
You find yourself hung on the cross,
and people gather just to laugh and gloat
while you are quite rejected there
to suffer and to bear your pain,
and see a man who has no ken
go by and look with great disdain,
but you don't care as you can find
that all your pleasure is to give,
and give much more
to make the person whom you love
attain the state of being saved and called
"A redeemed one".
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
What is true love?
It is the feelings that exist towards someone.
You give that person all your life.
You reach a state in which you lose
your value and all men's respect,
but you don't care.
You find yourself hung on the cross,
and people gather just to laugh and gloat
while you are quite rejected there
to suffer and to bear your pain,
and see a man who has no ken
go by and look with great disdain,
but you don't care as you can find
that all your pleasure is to give,
and give much more
to make the person whom you love
attain the state of being saved and called
"A redeemed one".
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
____________________________________
Published 31st Mar 2022
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 1
reading list entries 0
comments 9
reads 250
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
31st Mar 2022 4:09pm
Great question? And an even greater answer. As always, a masterpiece from your creative mind. Hugs and love, Oral
31st Mar 2022 4:25pm
Dear Oral,
Your words are great encouragement to me. Thank you very much. They will give me a great push forward. JZ
Your words are great encouragement to me. Thank you very much. They will give me a great push forward. JZ
Apart from the fact that you haven't defined "true love" as your title indicates you are going to do, your claim that it is " ... the feelings that exist towards someone." is nonsense since there are a variety of other feelings beside "true love" "existing" (Where? Did you mean "feelings that someone **shows** ??) towards others.
And if what you think **exemplifies** true love towards others is how Jesus reacted to disdain from others when he was on the cross, this can hardly be something he displayed all his life.
Moreover, what is the evidence that Jesus thought that he lost all of his value while on the cross.
And as to your claim that Jesus was one who lost the respect of men at that time, you ignore the fact that Luke tells us that he gained the respect of he :penitent thief and the centurion who oversaw the crucifixion honored him and that respect for him was what motivated to women of Jerusalem to wail for him as he was being led to his execution as well as that according to the author of the Gospel of John, there were those who did not mock Jesus when they saw Jesus crucified.
And what's with the use of "ken" with out an object of the verb?
You give that person all your life.
And if what you think **exemplifies** true love towards others is how Jesus reacted to disdain from others when he was on the cross, this can hardly be something he displayed all his life.
Moreover, what is the evidence that Jesus thought that he lost all of his value while on the cross.
And as to your claim that Jesus was one who lost the respect of men at that time, you ignore the fact that Luke tells us that he gained the respect of he :penitent thief and the centurion who oversaw the crucifixion honored him and that respect for him was what motivated to women of Jerusalem to wail for him as he was being led to his execution as well as that according to the author of the Gospel of John, there were those who did not mock Jesus when they saw Jesus crucified.
And what's with the use of "ken" with out an object of the verb?
You give that person all your life.
5th Apr 2022 8:07pm
Dear Baldwin,
1- By YOU, l mean ANYONE, and not,"My Lord and God, Jesus Christ".
2-And what's with the use of "ken" without an object of the verb?
Which verb are you writing about? Can you mention it please?
Thank you, Baldwin, for your great interest.
1- By YOU, l mean ANYONE, and not,"My Lord and God, Jesus Christ".
2-And what's with the use of "ken" without an object of the verb?
Which verb are you writing about? Can you mention it please?
Thank you, Baldwin, for your great interest.
I don't recall commenting on the "you" of verses 3 and 4, let alone asking who the pronoun in those verses refers to. But for you to deny that the referent of "you" in the following verses is not Jesus is absurd given what you say the person referred to there endures and how much of what you say he experiences is taken from, and matched up with what is said in, the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus' crucifixion, not to mention what you say his suffering on the cross and the love for others he shows there helps to makes others attain..
And the verb that I said should have a stated object to be used correctly (since your syntax indicates that it is transitive) is the archaic and rather stilted one drawn (once again for the umpteenth time as if the only word you have at your disposal for speaking of the act of knowing something) from your limited poetic vocabulary, i.e. "ken" .
And the verb that I said should have a stated object to be used correctly (since your syntax indicates that it is transitive) is the archaic and rather stilted one drawn (once again for the umpteenth time as if the only word you have at your disposal for speaking of the act of knowing something) from your limited poetic vocabulary, i.e. "ken" .
6th Apr 2022 6:04pm
Dear Baldwin,
1- In this poem, l am talking about TRUE LOVE. True love often leads to a lot of fear and suffering that anyone can bear, but the true lover says,"The loved one deserves it." Therefore, YOU can be ANYONE. This is true love.
2- "Ken" here is used as a noun and not as a verb.
Thank you, Baldwin, for your time and comment.
1- In this poem, l am talking about TRUE LOVE. True love often leads to a lot of fear and suffering that anyone can bear, but the true lover says,"The loved one deserves it." Therefore, YOU can be ANYONE. This is true love.
2- "Ken" here is used as a noun and not as a verb.
Thank you, Baldwin, for your time and comment.
"1- In this poem, l am talking about TRUE LOVE. True love often leads to a lot of fear and suffering that anyone can bear, but the true lover says,"The loved one deserves it." Therefore, YOU can be ANYONE. This is true love."
So true love is a person who says that his/her loved one deserves suffering since he/she know his/her beloved can bear it? Or are you trying to say that true love is saying to one's beloved" I know you can bear the suffering that you deserve"?
But the issue I was raising was whether or not the referent of the "You" in the verses **following** verses 1-3 can be anyone other than the crucified Jesus.
"2- "Ken" here is used as a noun and not as a verb.".
Yes you are correct. I misread what you said. But that does not change the fact that " and see a man who has no ken" makes little sense if you don't say what it is that the man has no knowledge of. Why would Jesus be aggrieved by seeing a man whose head is empty?
Nor does it change the fact that you use the archaic and stilted word "ken" as if you are not aware that there are a number of other words that signify what "ken" conveys, and that your repeated use of it shows just how limited your vocabulary is.
So true love is a person who says that his/her loved one deserves suffering since he/she know his/her beloved can bear it? Or are you trying to say that true love is saying to one's beloved" I know you can bear the suffering that you deserve"?
But the issue I was raising was whether or not the referent of the "You" in the verses **following** verses 1-3 can be anyone other than the crucified Jesus.
"2- "Ken" here is used as a noun and not as a verb.".
Yes you are correct. I misread what you said. But that does not change the fact that " and see a man who has no ken" makes little sense if you don't say what it is that the man has no knowledge of. Why would Jesus be aggrieved by seeing a man whose head is empty?
Nor does it change the fact that you use the archaic and stilted word "ken" as if you are not aware that there are a number of other words that signify what "ken" conveys, and that your repeated use of it shows just how limited your vocabulary is.
6th Apr 2022 9:58pm
Dear Baldwin,
Deserve: has both positive and negative meanings. Here l use it to mean, " My suffering is not wasted. They deserve what l went through."
Deserve: has both positive and negative meanings. Here l use it to mean, " My suffering is not wasted. They deserve what l went through."
If you have to explain what you were trying to say, then you admit you failed at doing what you were supposed to do -- communicate clearly and effectively.
And now you are saying that Jesus himself said " My suffering is not wasted. They deserve what l went through" when your piece does not depict Jesus saying any such thing.". And the word "deserve" does not appear anywhere within it .
Moreover, you've shown once again that your have no power or ability to effectively dispute legitimate, evidenced, and warranted criticism of the way you misuse English by not acknowledging, let alone speaking directly to, my point about how your particular use of the word "ken" is a solecism and does not convey whatever you were intent to convey.
And unfortunately, this piece is just another instance not only of how you are obsessed with one subject, but how you are not good at conveying what it is you want to say about it.
And now you are saying that Jesus himself said " My suffering is not wasted. They deserve what l went through" when your piece does not depict Jesus saying any such thing.". And the word "deserve" does not appear anywhere within it .
Moreover, you've shown once again that your have no power or ability to effectively dispute legitimate, evidenced, and warranted criticism of the way you misuse English by not acknowledging, let alone speaking directly to, my point about how your particular use of the word "ken" is a solecism and does not convey whatever you were intent to convey.
And unfortunately, this piece is just another instance not only of how you are obsessed with one subject, but how you are not good at conveying what it is you want to say about it.
