CAN DIRT REPLACE PURITY?

Wow! This is a question worthy of thought and discussion. Thanks for raising it. LOL,O

Would you please be kind enough to tell me what you understand J-Z to be asking when he writes "Can dirt replace purity?"?

Very dear LOL,
You are very kind, indeed. You've got a very dear friend to me.

There must be a mix.  Purity can't last forever, a person just might go insane (look at all those priest going the ''dirt'' way).

Very dear Robert,
Thank you very much for your comment. If the person goes insane, nobody can blame him whatever he does. When people talk about purity or religion, they immediately talk about priests. Priests are human beings, and exposed to all kinds of mistakes. Purity is an inner feeling and can be gained through the love we have to Jesus Christ, the only One Who is sinless and pure, and we get like that  tthrough our love to Him, and following His way. The reward is a sublime inner happiness, which we gain through our acts which nothing can compete with.

"Purity is an inner feeling and can be gained through the love we have to [?] Jesus Christ, the only One Who is sinless and pure, and we get like that  tthrough [SIC] our love to [SIC]Him, and following His way. "    
   
So there are no Jews or Muslims or Jains or Hindus or Buddhists or others, especially those who have never heard of Jesus,  who lead (or have led) pure lives?    
   
And BTW, purity is a state of being in which one is, or is declared to be, free from anything that one's culture defines as that which debases, contaminates, or pollutes one's body or character. not to mention, that which renders one unworthy to be in the presence of that which is thought to be holy or in the company of the "upright".".It is hardly an inner thought.  
   
I wonder if you will publicly admit that you have made a mistake in writing "tthrough"..

"When people talk about purity or religion, they immediately talk about priests".

They do? All people everywhere?  My experience is that when Catholics talk about purity,  the subject is Mary.'s purity or that of gays or their own sinfulness and what it is that makes one "impure".  And when Jewish friends of mine talk about purity, their subject is ritual purity and what renders them pure or impure and how they can or should regain a state of purity if they have done something that, according to the Talmud, renders them "impure", let alone whether the laws of purity set out in Torah and Mishnah and Talmud are applicable today.  When my Muslim and Buddhist friends talk about purity, the subject is almost never priests.  

And what they speak of when they talk about religion is most often not priests but about the Bible or other sacred scriptures and how to interpret it/them, what particular religious doctrines or world views can be accepted as true, or whether their own religion is superior to another..

So once again, you are claiming to have knowledge that you really don't possess.

Once again, you have written a text that does not answer the question set out in your text's title.  

Moreover, the question should be

"Should Dirt  

(better, writings that are "dirty" [according to your sexist, paternalistic, hyper-puritanical ethos] in theme and substance)

replace those whose subjects are not sexual activities and pleasures of the flesh?"  

since it is quite obvious that writings that celebrate and rejoice in sexual activity and pleasure and that find joy and meaning and purpose and even salvation in sensuality are not only  **able** (that's what "can" means)  to replace ones that refuse to wallow in what you consider to be "obscene" subjects,  

but frequently do  (notably by poets of the golden age of poetry such as Donne, Herrick,  Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Shakespeare, Shelly, and Keats and by such well-regarded ancient poets as Ovid and Catullus and Sappho and such award-winning, well regarded and often lauded modern poets as Dickenson, H.D,, Nabokov,   Emma Lazarus, Neruda, ee cummings, Robert Frost, Thomas Pynchon, and Constantine Cavafy among many others).  


And BTW, the first thing that comes to mind when you speak of "dirt" is particles of topsoil. or a substance, such as mud or dust, that soils someone or something (https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/dirt). So you seem to be asking if loose earth or topsoil "is able to take the place "that one's freedom from anything that contaminates, defiles, corrupts, or debases has -- which is an absurd question. since it is obvious that it cannot do this.  Dirt may make one physically "unclean" or even unworthy to eat without contamination of what one eats or to enter a clean house...  But it can hardly replace a moral quality.

You have your own definitions for everything, and you want people to accept your opinions. What a mind!

"You have your own definitions for everything, and you want people to accept your opinions. What a mind!"  
   
The definitions I noted are not mine.  They are taken from authoritative dictionaries such as the OED and even Longman, your go-to dictionary. So yes, I have good reason to expect people to accept what I note words mean.

And even if "my opinions" on the meaning of words were mine alone, you've done nothing to show that they are not correct.   And until you do (not to mention until you show that your opinions on the meaning of the words you use are correct, let alone correctly used), readers have no reason not to accept my notes on the meaning of words as true.  
   
Moreover,  the only one here who expects people to accept what amounts to their own (dictionarily unsubstantiated and often demonstrably wrong) definitions of the meaning of words is you.

I bet that your philosophy is much  talking  can spoil everything even good poetry. I am sure that you aren't talkative , but garrulous.

"I am sure that you aren't talkative ,  [SIC]but garrulous."    
     
I'm going to ignore the fact that you do not seem to understand that "garrulous" means being talkative in a certain way and therefore is not, as your use of "aren't and "but" in your claim above indicates, something that stands in opposition to or in contrast with  "talkative", and therefore that you are not right to think that whatever it was you were trying to assert in your claim is true      
   
But even if, against evidence to the contrary, it is true,   so what?".    
     
How on earth does the truth of your (unsubstantiated) evaluation of my "philosophy" and the character of my speech show  
   
1. that my notes about how you have misunderstood the meaning of certain of the words you use in your posts that standard dictionaries attest they have are wrong, let alone off-point and unwarranted?  
   
2. that my remarks about how absurd the claims you make within your posts are invalid?  and
   
3. that I'm wrong to think, let alone to claim,  that linguistic,  metrical, and conceptual faults and discrepancies as well as solecisms populate your posts?  
     
Perhaps instead of posting an irrelevant ad hominem in response to them, you'd actually demonstrate not only that they are indeed prosy, ramblings on trivial matters but are invalid.

Your terribly lengthy, boring writing makes people sorry after wasting some time reading all what you have written. If you want people to read all your writing, make it as short as possible, otherwise, nobody is ready to waste his time on such... .

"Your terribly lengthy, boring writing makes people sorry after wasting some time reading all what [SIC  all of what]  you have you have written. If you want people to read all your writing, make it as short as possible, otherwise, nobody is ready to waste his time on such... .J  
   
   
Once again you've found a way to dodge my questions to you.  And it is clear that the reason for your dodge is that you know that if you'd honestly answer what I asked you to tell me,  you'd have to admit that all I said about your post is true.    
   
In any case, how do you know what my messages makes people on DUP feel and that all of the subscribers to DUP think that reading my posts is a waste of time?  
   
Did you take a comprehensive survey of everyone who is subscribed to DUP?  
   
And unless you have and found that everyone feels what you say they feel, why should anyone, especially those who don't see through how you've yet again played the coward with respect to responding honestly and responsibly to what I asked you to say and how you are using a pitiful excuse (the length, but curiously not the substance, of my posts) to justify your not answering my questions,  regard you as telling the truth?  
   
You are, after all, and have been shown with irrefutable evidence to be, a prevaricator as well as one who does not (and cannot) show that criticisms of your posts are unwarranted when they are or are off base.  
   
Here's something I write that's short and to the point.  
   
How on earth does the truth of your (unsubstantiated) evaluation of my "philosophy" and the character of my speech show that my notes about how you have misunderstood the meaning of certain of the words you use in your posts that standard dictionaries attest they have are wrong, let alone off-point and unwarranted?    
   
What dodge are you going to use this time to excuse yourself from showing me how your evaluation does this?  
   
   
  

Is it correct to say, " ...to justify your not answering my questions [that] regard you as telling the truth. ...or regarding you.... .

Your thinking that I have made a mistake in not writing "regarding" or "that regard" is based upon a misreading of what I wrote and a misunderstanding of what I was saying.   What I wrote was  
 
" ... why should anyone, especially those who don't see through ... how you are using a pitiful excuse (the length, but curiously not the substance, of my posts) to justify your not answering my questions, regard you as telling the truth?"    
 
The question is whether anyone should regard your claim about how I make subscribers to DUP feel as true, let alone evidence-based.  
 
So you have (once again) misread and misunderstood what I wrote.  
 
But to do what you do not do when I ask you questions," I give you aa direct answer to your question.  No, it would not have been correct for me to have written either "regarding you  .'.".. or "that regard ..." since the subject of the verb "regard" is not "questions", It's what you somehow did not see was as plain as day, "anyone".
 
Is it correct to claim as a fact that you know without a doubt that everyone on DUP who reads my posts regrets the time they've spent doing so?  
 
Cue the dodge.

Do you admit your mistake here or you don't, Baldwin, whether it is, That or Regarding?

"Do you admit your mistake here or you don't, "  
   
Leaving aside the fact that for what you wrote to be sensible you should have written "Either you admit your mistake or you don't...",  or "will you or won't you admit your mistake ...",  
 
your garbled and poorly formed question is another dodge of the questions I asked you.    
   
In any case, I made no mistake in my message above.  What I wrote was    
a perfectly correct way of asking the question I was asking  (i.e., whether anyone should think that you were telling the truth when you claimed that all those who read my posts regret the time they have spent in doing so).    
   
So there's no reason that I should admit that I made a mistake in not using  "regarding"  let alone "that regard" after "questions,  since, as the comma after "questions" shows, the subject of "regard" is "anyone" not "questions.".    
   
If anyone has made a mistake, it's you for misreading what I wrote and thinking on the basis of this misreading, that I should have written "regarding"  or "that regard".

If by "dirt" you mean " dust, soil, or any substance that makes a surface not clean": " any substance that makes things dirty, such as mud or dust" -- which, as such dictionaries as the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English note,  is the primary meaning of this word    
   
on this, see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dirt:    
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/dirt    
   
then the answer to your question is "no".  Dirt is not able to take the place of a moral quality.  How could it?    
   
But if by "dirt" you mean a type of poetry that deals with subjects like the pleasures of the body, which (quite obviously because of your evident obsessive puritanicalism?) disgust you and that you find morally reprehensible, and, is to your eyes,  pornographic,      
   
and if by "replace"  you mean becomes the only type of poetry one likes or writes, or thinks is good and should be written and is to be published,      
   
and if by "purity" you mean poetry that dwells on "the good and admirable" and aims to inspire readers to moral uprightness,   then the answer to your question is "yes".  "Dirt" It is not only something that has the ability to do what you think should not be done. It is often what has been done.  So it is not clear what reason you have to ask a question the answer to which is as obvious as it is already known.    
   
But if you are using the words "dirt", "replace", and "purity" (not to mention "can")  as ciphers for meanings other than those listed above, what are these meanings and what are you actually asking when you ask "Can dirt replace purity"?    
   
Cue the non-answer to this question and/or the avoidance (through the use of lame excuses for not speaking directly to it ) of answering it, if not also the ad hominem attack that I lack the imagination to see and understand what is supposedly plainly stated...

This piece assumes that it is wrong, let alone harmful, for "man" to move from "the spirit"  (whatever that is) to the body and its pleasures.  But according to the Bible, and in numerous Rabbinic pronouncements in the Mishnah and Talmud, the body's pleasures are a gift to "man"   from God that God fully intends "man" to enjoy --  both now and in the age to come.  So to disdain them as something dirty is to insult God  

"He is facing lots of changes
from emotions to what's dirty."

Please tell me what it is that's "dirty" and what the emotions are that"man" has been experiencing before he's become faced with changes".

According to the Mishna,Talmud, and lslam the body's
pLeasures are a gift to man. Can you explain that please?

"According to the Mishna, [SIC[ Talmud, and lslam the body's  
pLeasures are a gift to man . Can you explain that please {SIC, please]?  
 
Well here is another of your frequent misrepresentations of what I wrote, i.e.,

"But according to the Bible, and in numerous Rabbinic pronouncements in the Mishnah and Talmud, the body's pleasures are a gift to "man"   from God that God fully intends "man" to enjoy."  

Where did I speak of Islam?  
 
And what needs to be explained?  Did you mean "are you able to [can}  document your claim?".

Once, you said that l mention the priests as pure people, and l don't consider the jews and the moslems as such. Here l am asking you about them.

"Once, you said that l mention [sic] the [sic] priests as pure people, "    
     
I said no such thing.    
     
"and l don't consider the jews [SIC]and the moslems [SIC] as such."    
     
Wow.   I knew you were extremely ignorant when it comes to matters Biblical, Christological, and theological., But I did not think that you were an anti-Semite and believed that Muslims were racially inferior to you and were incapable of being moral or righteous in the eyes of God.  I guess, however, given how often you imply or explicitly proclaim that you possess "the Truth"  about what leads to righteousness and who it is that God accepts as "pure",  that I should have suspected it.    
   
In any case, I never asked you about whether you thought that the whole body of the Jewish people or the whole body of those who profess Islam are without moral fault. I asked you whether you were claiming in your assertion that "purity" comes only from believing in Jesus that there are not, and have never been, any** individual ** Jews or Muslims or Jains or Hindus or Buddhists or others, especially those who have never heard of Jesus,  who lead (or have led) lives free from that which makes one "impure".  
 
I note that you have yet to give me your answer.  
   
  

Will you openly admit that  you made mistakes in these lines  
 
"How can dirt be brave and and mighty  
to involve itsef in rapture  
changing what was high and honest  
into what is so disgusting?  
 
 by writing "and and"  as well as "itsef"?  
 
And are you ever going to answer the question that you posed there?  More importantly, will you be humble enough to admit that dirt can't do these things since it is an inanimate object and has no capacity to want to do anything let alone to strive to do anything..

First, tell me about what's supposed to be mistaken except in your imagination. Then l answer your question, Baldwin.

I  spoke about what are plainly and indisputably and objectively solecisms in the first and second lines of your final stanza,  not what is falsely taken to be a fact.  But you are mistaken to think that "and and" is good English and that "itsef" is a word..Did you mean "itself"? If so, you made an orthographical mistake.

I've answered your question.  Now do as you said you would if I answered it, namely,  admit that what you say about dirt in the last stanza of this submission of yours is nonsense since dirt is an inanimate object and has no capacity to want to do anything let alone to strive to do anything.  
 
Cue the dodge.

1- One thousand  ANDS are good English if they are used correctly, and 2- ITSEF is a GOOF, which you have a lot of them. Be reasonable, my dear, Baldwin.

"1- One thousand  ANDS are good English if they are used correctly"

Even if this is true, the question is "Are they used correctly here?". And the answer is "no".