THE DECISIVE OPTION

“He hasn't looked for what He likes.
His boon will all His life destroy.
It will disturb His glorious plan
and bring His heart most horrid woe.”

Assuming that the referent of the pronouns is Jesus, several things in this stanza are unclear, if not also contradictory.

1.  What is it that Jesus “likes” but hasn’t "looked for"?  

2.  What are you asserting in your awkwardly phrased claim that “His boon will all His life destroy”?  Is it that  Jesus’ boon will engage in destroying things as long as he is alive?  Or is it  that Jesus'  boon will destroy the entirety of HIS life?  

3 If the former, how and why will it have that effect?

4. If the latter, what is the blessing** that contrary to what a boon does***,  will destroy “all [of] Jesus’ life”.  What is the glorious plan that his blessing** will disturb and how and why will it bring his heart the most horrid woe that it could know?

Please answer each of these questions.

** Definition of boon (Entry 1 of 2)
1: a timely benefit : BLESSING

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boon


*** boon

From the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

boon /buːn/ noun [countable usually singular]    
something that is very useful and makes your life a lot easier or better

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/boon

Two more questions:  
 
1.  Shouldn't L3 of this stanza  
 
"This is the choice you have in life  
to serve yourself or who are near.  
You can't have both as selfish men  
reduce to peat those who are dear."  
 
be  
 
You can't DO both (i.e., serve yourself  AND serve [those] who are near...)?  
 
2.  And is it true that selfish men always reduce those who are dear [to them?] to "an accumulation of partially decayed vegetation or organic matter"?    
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat  
 
Do you have any evidence that this is so?  
 
Cue the red herrings and the claim that I have no imagination or understanding of poetry which [it will be claimed] these lines are.

Very dear Baldwin,
I'll directly start to answer your questions as they are a lot.
1- He likes to save Himself, and not to have this painful end.
2- "His boon will all His life destroy." His boon: What is favorable and comfortable to Him is to be courageous and do the will of His Father in heaven as this is very hard, but it will give Him eternal happiness.
3- ... is it true that selfish men always reduce...  : Yes, their selfishness drives them to use their friends as a means or fuel or fire for their ambition.
Thank you, Baldwin. I always consider you as a dear friend who has a different opinion.

Leaving aside the fact that these two statements of yours

"1- He likes to save Himself, and not to have this painful end.

2- "His boon will all His life destroy." His boon: What is favorable and comfortable to Him is to be courageous and do the will of His Father in heaven as this is very hard, but it will give Him eternal happiness."

are contradictory in that according to you, what Jesus "likes" is to do the will of his father which he knows will lead to "this" (deixis) painful end,

I note that you didn't answer these questions:

1.  What is the glorious plan that his blessing** will disturb and

2   how and why will it bring his heart the most horrid woe that it could know

especially if, as you say, Jesus'  boon gave him eternal happiness?

3.  Shouldn't L3 of this stanza:

"This is the choice you have in life
to serve yourself or who are near.
You can't have both as selfish men
reduce to peat those who are dear."

be

You can't DO both (i.e., serve yourself or serve [those] who are near...)?

I note, too, that you said noting about selfish men using those who are dear[presumably, to them] as a  "means of fuel .. for their ambition", let alone how doing so would show that the people they use are dear to them (ah, but using "dear" gives you a rhyme!). Surely this would show that the people they use are NOT dear to them.

Furthermore, even assuming that selfish men are always ambitious rather than simply protective of what they have,  your statement is strangely phrased.  People use others AS fuel, or better, as stepping stones toward gaining what they are ambitious for,  NOT as a means to gain fuel.  And it is not at all clear how ambition is powered by fire.

Is self denying or self sacrifice something enjoyable? Christ sacrificed Himself to please God the Father and to save the people and  show His love them, which was the right thing to do. SACRIFICE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. But sacrifice can't be a boon or something delightful. It is suffering.

"Is self denying or self sacrifice something enjoyable?"

You said it was when you wrote

"What is favorable and comfortable to Him is to be courageous and do the will of His Father in heaven as this is very hard, but it will give Him eternal happiness."

And your are dodging the other questions I asked of you.

" ...as this is very hard [FOR HIM TO DO OR TO BEAR], BUT it will give Him eternal happiness, as it is what is right to go through.

Please show me where in your submission you actually said  " His boon: What is favorable and comfortable to Him is to be courageous and do the will of His Father in heaven] as this is very hard [FOR HIM TO DO OR TO BEAR], BUT it will give Him eternal happiness, as it is what is right to go through." let alone indicated IN YOUR SUBMISSION what Jesus' boon was.  That you have to explain what it is outside of the submission is an admission that you did NOT say what Jesus' boon  was in your piece.

You can find it in the second stanza if you read it carefully.

Nonsense.  There 's nothing in the second stanza, no matter how hard one looks at it or reads it, that speaks in any way of Jesus' boon to be to follow his father's will, let alone to experience eternal joy.    
    
All it speaks of is how it will destroy Jesus' life,  disturb his "glorious plan", and bring unprecedented woe to his heart.    
  
And while we're at it, no one desires a norm, even if  norms were objects of desire.   What men (and women) desire is to ** follow** norms that in their eyes will lead to happiness.  And what they aspire to is to DO good.  
 
 

Very dear Baldwin,
You really surprise me, Baldwin. Thank you very much for your great efforts, ,whatever their purpose can be.

"Very dear Baldwin,
You really surprise me, Baldwin. Thank you very much for your great efforts, , [sic] whatever their purpose can be."

Did you mean "whatever their purpose MAY be"?

In any case, why do I surprise you?

And I note that this is yet another of your non responsive messages to the questions I asked you and the remarks I made about your claims.  It's nice to see that you don't want to admit that I was right in what I noted about your second stanza and what it does not say.

I would like to tell you that CAN BE is the ability to be, and MAY BE is the possibility to be. They have different meanings, Baldwin. Can you tell me which one is stronger?

This is yet another dodge of the real issues.

"Can be" makes the  purposes of my "efforts" (at what you leave unclear)  something unrelated to what I intended them to have.

"May be" limits the purposes of my "efforts"  to what I intended them to be, which, by the way, include showing that getting rhymes is more important to you than making sense and that what you say in your likes is often wholly obscure, contrary to fact,  and in contradiction to what you say in other lines.

In any case, let's get back to discussing  the validity of  remarks I've made about your claim concerning what one will find stated in the second stanza of your submission if one reads it "carefully".  It really doesn't say what you claim it says, does it.

... whatever their purpose CAN BE: ... is able to be. ... MAY BE: ... is possible to be. Both of them are correct, but l asked you which of them had a more stressed meaning. Can you answer this question?

And yet another dodge of dealing responsibly with the questions I asked and the issue of validity of the remarks I made concerning how your claim about what  is stated in the second stanza of your submission  is not apparent on any reading of it and how poorly written and contradictory the submission is.

In any event, if you read my message above carefully, you'll  see that I already have answered your red herringed question.

It is not a red herring. It's you who are dodging. Finish the question which which you have raised first, before moving to another. Why does it make it unclear? Is it Just because Baldwin said so? Again l ask you which one of them is more stressed.

How about YOU first  answering the questions and addressing the remarks I made about your claims concerning aspects of your submission **before**  you raised the issue of what phrase I think has more  stress.  After all, you said you would.  

And as I said before,  I DID answer that question.  It's not my fault that you don't have the perspicuity  to see that I did when I spoke of which of the two phrases is unlimiting and which is limiting.  So I haven't dodged anything.

BTW, the question is actually which one YOU intended to be more stressed, especially since the phrases in question do NOT mean the same thing.

Who wants to wager that the focus  of J-Z's response to this message will be on this last remark of mine and not on the issues that I have raised with respect to how poorly his submission is written?

"Again l ask you which one of them is more stressed."  
 
The issue is not which one is more stressed/stronger (what ever that means).  It's which best suits what you were trying to say when you wrote "Thank you very much for your great efforts, ,whatever their purpose can be."  
   
Is it not true that while thanking me for my "efforts" (though you did not say, as you should have done , what the object of my efforts was for your statement to have been well written)  you then attempted to note that thanks to me were due ***no matter what my  purpose(s) was/ were** in making them?    

That is to say,  that you intended me to take your remark as having the meaning    
 
"Thank you very much for your great efforts to show me the linguistic and interpretative problems my submission has,  whatever your purpose in doing so was".  
   
If so, then "may be" (better "may have been") is what was required for you to have said what you were intending to say.  I.e.,  

"Thank you very much for your great efforts, ,whatever their purpose may have been."  
   
Moreover,  I think that what you were really trying to say was that you were grateful for my expending time to make remarks about your submissions regardless of whatever **motivated** me to make them.

Very dear Baldwin,
If you have this very wide imagination that takes you to the far east and the far west, you should easily understand what l mean in my poetry. I know what you will answer me because l know the kind of character you have. I'll tell you if l am right or wrong whether you believe me or not. However, l like you as a dear friend whether you believe it or not.

It should not take vast imagination to understand what you mean to, but often don't actually,  say in your submissions.  Their meaning should be clear from the start.  It is a sign of bad writing that it isn't.

More importantly, you've once again dodged speaking directly to the remarks I've made about how the way you've set out your submission makes it both obscure and an example of poor writing , let alone actually answering the questions I've asked you about it .  

And please tell me not only what kind of character it is that you **know **I have,  but how what you** know ** to be the nature of my character  has any  relevance to the question of the validity of  what I say about the quality, coherence, and comprehensibility  of what you write.