YOUR ANSWERS GRATIFY ME.

Humans are never quite satisfied with the direction of their lives, my poet, and I say that with the warmest regards, with that being said, if we were, then there will be no need for progress, there will be no reason in aspire to dream. Reward of merriment does come from the heart, if found to be acceptable at that point in time however, when we begin to place our wants, and needs above our Creator until we become glutton, then we become like Gods and we befall into that, thy will be done.

You ask a very pondering question to take into consideration before answering, therefore, I feel comfortable in my opinion to have answered.

Please have a blessed weekend as you see fit, and have faith in all you do.

"You ask a very pondering question..."

Can questions engage in "pondering"?

Did you mean a question worth thinking about?

A contemplation of thought, manifested by another to be asked comes from the core of the mind, only to be awarded in its merit by the nature of its receptiveness.

I stated 'he' asked a pondering question, therefore, the answer to your question, is absolutely, my poet.

Too be academically correct, let's explore your question farther

Pon·der
/ˈpändər/
verb

1.
think about (something) carefully, especially before making a decision or reaching a conclusion:
"I pondered the question of what clothes to wear for the occasion"

Enjoy your Sunday, my poet.

The issue is not about academic correctness.  It is whether the expression "pondering question" is a solecism. Since it is not sentient,   a question cannot think about something.  
But it can be something that is worth a person giving it serious thought.

'What do you think of life? Is there a task
which man should do ere he departs or leaves?
Are we supposed to be prepared for death?
Is there no Father Who will meet His kids?'

This was the preceding 'question' my poet, not an analogy of the thought.

It is not a mistake or error on my behalf. The poet asked a question worth pondering, in its engagement with a receptive answer, it was replied to earnestly.

But he did not ask a question that was pondering something,

I take it that you don't understand that when you modify the noun "question" with the verbal adjective "pondering",  as you have done, that's what you end up saying the question does.

I think you need to reread and then reassess in its entirety a better conclusion to properly define the analogy of pondering a question, from the person who is asking in parallel to the person who is answering. I can only assume the poet weighed carefully in his mind before he asked, which I stated he asked a pondering question, to have replied accordingly. Your grammatic jargon does not constitute.  

Is "pondering" a verbal adjective or not?  
 
Leaving aside the fact that "verbal adjective" is not jargon,  i.e.  
 
"special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand"  
 
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/jargon)  
 
let alone "obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words"  
 
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jargon)  
 
but a widely known and used perfectly understandable and understood linguistic term    
 
is "Your grammatic [SIC grammatical] jargon does not constitute" an intelligible sentence? Since "constitute" is a transitive verb, don't you need to say what it is that my "jargon" males up or forms for your sentence to be so?  
 
In any case, are you really asserting that the expression "pondering question" means the same thing as "a question that is worth pondering"?

As I read this I felt the urge to actually  answer these questions. They are thought provoking. They make you think about what's next in life.

Very dear SKC,
Thank you very much for your great comment. Indeed, people are not satisfied with themselves. They should place their Lord before their needs, Thy will be done, and they should depend on their Lord for their happiness. Thank you very much for your valuable advice. J.Z.

You are humbly welcome, my poet, enjoy.

Very dear LJ,
It's very kind of you to feel so and to answer me. Thank you for considering my words thought provoking and for making you think about what is next in life. J.Z.

"Why don't you answer me [SIC,  where is the comma of address?] my dearest friends?"    
    
"Are you quite satisfied with your own lives?"    
  
As opposed to someone else's lives?    
   
"Do you find all your care exists in fun?"    
   
I take it that what you are asking here is " Do you find that the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something has objective reality or being in what provides enjoyment, amusement, or lighthearted pleasure?".    
   
If so, would it be wrong to answer yes.  The Bible (cf. Eccl. 8:15),  not to mention Epictetus,  would disagree with you if you think otherwise.    
   
And if you meant to ask  "do you find that all you care about is having fun?", you haven't done so.    
   
"Does not your end create a sense of doubt?"    
   
No, it doesn't, even if it is clear -- as it is not -- what it is you mean by "your end" and what the doubt you mention is about?    
   
"What do you think of life? Is there a task  
which man should do ere he departs or leaves?"  
   
Why, given that the expression "ere he departs or leaves " raises questions of "departs from where?" and "leaves what?", did you not say "before he dies"?"  Were you aiming to be unclear on this matter?    
   
In any case,  isn't it a contradiction to claim as you do in your title to this submission that  "your answers gratify [you}' when you go on to say that your friends haven't given you any answers?

"Why don't you answer me, my dearest friends?"

No doubt it's because (1)  they don't want to be lectured to by you about how they are poor souls who are wrong to believe that unless they believe in your Gnostic Jesus they will never find happiness, (2)  that they are tired of hearing that the only thing that makes life meaningful and gives "man" hope is belief in life after death, (3)  that they find your continual harping on these topics and unwillingness to consider that your claims are wrong incredibly boring, (4) that given the poor way you pose your questions, they are not worth reading let alone answering, and (5) that they do not ow you any answers to your questions, especially given how presumptuous and paternalistic they are.

He departs OR leaves: l am surprised. Doesn't it clarify to your mind the intended meaning? It's not AND as you write. It's OR.

"He departs OR leaves: l am surprised. Doesn't it clarify to your mind the intended meaning? It's not AND as you write. It's OR."      
      
Leaving aside the fact that I did not misquote you   when I wrote   
     
"Why, given that the expression "ere he departs or leaves " raises questions of "departs from where?" and "leaves what?"  did you not say "before he dies"? "    
   
and that my use of "and" is used to distinguish one question from another that I asked.   
     
No, it doesn't make clear to me that you were actually saying, let alone intending to convey  that "ere he departs or leaves" was to be taken as the equivalent of  "ere he dies".   especially given that the use of "or" in the expression  "departs OR leaves"  means that "the departing" that you speak of involves "man's" doing something that is different from, and not the same as,  his "leaving".    
   
Now, how about making me surprised by dealing with the other questions I raised about what you wrote?  For instance:  Isn't it a contradiction to claim as you do in your title to this submission that  "your answers gratify [you}' when you go on to say that your friends haven't given you any answers?

This is a nice reminder, a nice guide for us all and teaches true values of our lives, also, reminds us we are children of God  to return to him.

Dear Boyana,
Thank you very much, Boyana, for your great encouragement. But l am very surprised that the reaction to my poems, and the comments on them are not enough for me. I don't know why.

Most people just read. Probably cannot express their thoughts or just keep it to themselves? This is the case with most of my views, too. Many views, less comments.

"Most people just read. Probably cannot express their thoughts or just keep it to themselves? This is the case with most of my views, too. Many views, less [SIC fewer] comments."

You have left out noting another and more probable reason for the lack of comments, i.e., that people don't think his  submission are worth commenting upon   After all, given how J-Z has shown that he only wants adulation and not honest criticism,  especially if itgives warranted evidence that he does not write well, why bother?  It is  demonstrably true that he will meet such comments with  ad hominem attacks upon those who give him what he claims he wants and with unjustified  disdain for daring to challenge his claims that he knows more about poetry than anyone else  here. .So why invite such abuse?

Dear Boyana,
Thank you very much for answering my request. I love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live, not imaginative

"I love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live, not imaginative [sic full stop]"

I trust you meant to write "I love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live, not imagine".  One cannot "do" an adjective.

In any case  (and leaving aside that many of your submissions are not grounded in things that you live, but in your imagination),  you contradict yourself when you claim that you love the poetry of poets like Shelly and Keats and even "Wordwrth" [see https://allpoetry.com/Youssefzenieh], since much of their work is grounded in things they have imagined.

You really surprise me.  What is wrong with, "l love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live, not [ SOMETHING] imaginative. Here "SOMETHING" is implied, so it can be omitted.  
Why didn't you say, "NOT THEY IMAGINE" ?

"Why didn't you say, "NOT THEY IMAGINE" ?"    
   
Because that would be a solecism.    
     
It would have to be "Not what they imagine" to be grammatically correct.    
   
 
Moreover, when you use the verb "live" as you do, i.e., as a way of doing things that contrasts with something else,  what is required to complete that contrast is an expression that uses another verb.  

"something that they have lived (had actual experience of)  versus something that they have only imagined as having happened.".
 
And why don't you love poetry that .is born of a writer's imagination?  Why do you find it unlovable?  Is Keats'  "La Belle Dame sans Merci: A Ballad" something that you do not love? His "The Eve of St. Agnes"?  "Wordwrth's""  ‘"The Solitary Reaper’"?  
     
After all, a lot of your submissions [e.g, "the Mountain and the Vale", "A Quick Decision",  "Faithful or Crazy", "The Car that Remained New", '"Was that Fair?", "From Hope to Despair", "It Has Been Completed", "They Can't Talk About it", etc.]  are born from your imagination, not from what you "lived".  By your own logic,  you must hate those submissions.

I mean to tell you, "THEY" is omitted like "SOMETHING". Why didn't you answer my question? Can't we omit ,SOMETHING, and if we do the sentence which you corrected becomes correct. So WHY DID YOU CORRECT WHAT IS RIGHT?

Because it isn't right.  The second half of your contrast needs to be a verbal expression.

And why have you ignored my question about why you do not love poems that are not grounded in a writer's personal experience but in his/her imagination especially since a number of your submissions stem from your imagination, not your personal experience of something?

Which contrast?

The contrast between poetry that arises from a writer's personal experience and that which arises from a writer's imagination.

Didn't you say you loved the former but not the latter?

And you have yet to answer my question as to why you have written about things that you have no personal experience of if the poetry that you love is the poetry that is grounded in personal experience.

1-What is wrong with, " l love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live not something imaginative.
2- about something: preposition + pronoun/ not about something imaginative. not about: prep + something [which is imaginative]: something: pronoun+ imaginative [which is imaginative]: relative clause to qualify something. Of course, we omit words to avoid repetitions.
What is wrong with this?

1-What is wrong with, " l love poetry when [SIC in which] the poet writes about something they really live not something imaginative."

Well, for one thing, it assumes that poets who write about something they have experienced personally do not do so imaginatively. And it is based on the presumption that much of the poetry written by Keats and Shelly and "Wordwrth"  (not to mention Milton and Shakespeare)  is something not worth your love.

It says that your love is contingent upon **the time at which**  a poet writes about things he or she "lives".

For another, it doesn't say what you think you are saying.  You are contrasting two types of poems: those that are written about things a poet has lived or is living through and those that are written about things a poet has no direct experience of.  and that has never really happened.  So to say what you want to say, you should have written " l love poetry where the subject of which is something a poet has (or has had)   personal experience of, and do not love poetry where the subject is something a poet has only imagined as happening.  

For another,   you are claiming that you don't love your submissions in which you write about imagined happenings.

"Of course, we omit words to avoid repetitions."

No, you omit words because you don't know how to make your point clearly.

And what you have omitted in your claim about the type of poetry you don't love was not an avoidance of a repetition of things you wrote.

In any case, when you leave out words that you think are understood you are not only assuming what needs to be proven; you are crafting lines that leave you open to the charge of ambiguity and are doing what no good writer should ever do, i.e., make a reader guess at what you have meant to say.

But thanks for once again avoiding answering the questions I asked you to answer..

Now we are talking about grammar. Please, don't change the subject.
1- You could not prove that the sentence you had corrected was wrong. You left the subject atogether. I wonder what the reason is.
2- l love poetry when the poet writes... . This is an adverb clause of time. This is what l like to use. Why should l say IN WHICH and change it to relative clause. My sentence is not wrong, and neither is yours, but there is nothing wrong with my adverb clause of time. Why should l change it into a relative clause. Only those who ignore grammar correct in such a way.

"1- You could not prove that the sentence you had corrected was wrong. You left the subject altogether."

I gave you three reasons why your sentence was wrong and did not say what you presumably were trying to convey.  So I did not leave "the subject"  And you have not shown, that my reasons have no weight.  So if anyone has left the subject, it's you.

And as to wondering things,  I wonder why you have not answered the questions I asked you about whether you found certain poems by Keats and Shelly, not to mention certain of your submissions,  unlovable since they did not arise from what these poets and you  "lived".  

l love poetry when the poet writes... . This is an adverb clause of time. This is what l like to use. Why should l say IN WHICH

Because in using "when"  -- which means

at what time

at or during which time

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

and is used when someone wants to show "which particular time or occasion he or she is talking about.

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

you have said what I have claimed you are conveying with your words, namely,   that your love is contingent upon **the time at which**  a poet writes about things he or she "lives".

And I note again that you have not answered the questions I asked you about whether you found certain poems by Keats and Shelly, not to mention by you in the submissions of yours that I mentioned,  unlovable since they did not arise from what these poets (and you)  "lived".  

I must conclude from this that the reason you have not done so is that you would show that you haven't (once again) spoken the truth since you do love what you have claimed is not it worth loving.

"Only those who ignore grammar correct [SIC correct it] in such a way".

Really?  Then you are admitting that I know grammar and that you have written poorly.

Baldwin, you had spoken about grammar mistakes, and when l proved that all your assumptions were invalid, you started to say the omissions l used in my poetry and in invalidating the grammar mistakes, you had written about, you spoke about in your answer before the last. How can l take you seriously and bother myself to answer you?

"Baldwin, you had spoken about grammar mistakes,  

No. I spoke about usage mistakes  and how you didn't understand what the syntax of your claim "I love poetry when the poet writes about something they really live..." makes you claim

"and when l proved that all your assumptions were invalid...,"  
   
I did not post "assumptions"  I posted evidenced assertions.  And you have not proven anything except that you don't know what you are talking about,  have no idea how to write intelligible English,  and that when it comes to answering the questions I asked you about whether you think the poems of Keats I noted and certain of your submissions are not worth loving because they are "imaginings" you are a coward.