BEWARE WHAT YOU CHOOSE!

Dear Joseph, i so much share your brilliant thoughts, wisdom that skips into the mind of those who do really see, not just skim the surface of life; but deeply scanning its core and taking what does really matters, your beliefs are firm;
unshakable, you can safely and peacefully live a well blessed life, and even when you die, i assure my friend that you dont regret having that belief in Christ
which guides your steps...peace on you here and after, and your brotherhood cant be equaled......Keep the good word echoing in this lost world. may they
hear your voice and follow your track..Amen,
Islam does never enter into clash with any religion, It only rejects extremist thoughts, and praise the moderate ones....
Thanks for a bright poem

Very dear P.D.,
First of all l am extremely happy that you remain in the group because you are a very dear friend to me, and if you leave the group, l have no way to contact that very dear friend, you.
Thank you very much for liking my way of creed and life. It makes me very happy. Through it, l got rid of hatred, and anxiety that tortured me in the past. Thank God, l am very happy now. Jesus Christ has freed me from fear and granted me peace and happiness which He has made a part of my life. He makes writing very easy to me. I just look in my heart and copy.
Please don't leave the group for my sake. You are so valuable to me.  J.Z.

Thank You Bother Joseph,      
We are destined to meet here under the faithful shade of friendship and brotherhood,We are not only connected with words,    
we are human beings after all, we are linked with belied even if the branches are different, yet, they belong to one only tree,    
Its Faith in God.I am always writing the words that make humans read , enjoy and think, if they are more advanced in literary notions, and knowledge.Nature is the concrete witness of all Beauty, it teaches the values that must reign on earth between humans,...      
Devil could be standing between us if we get off the real track of Nature and Faith, we we dont give him any room to move...we must shackle his movements and keep him away.........      
For your sake, and those who believe that poetry is also a way to know people and have good friends, and a means of making this      
sacred Earth look beautiful...      
Have good times, God bless.

Very dear P.D.,
You are very dear to me, and l am very glad to have such a great friend. We shall keep formality aside and talk to each other very frankly and openly. Some friendships don't need time to grow deep and sincere, and l'm sure that ours is one of them. J.Z.

Very dear P.D.,
I can't see your page. It is still blocked to me. Send me something from your page, please. J.Z.

"Change the danger into welfare,"  
 
"the" danger?  Which one?  
 
"where what's sin will get a virtue"  
 
Which virtue will sin get? Honesty, Courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, prudence?

"as the face of Christ will tell you
when you start to see His brilliance.'

What is it that the face of Christ will tell me when I start to see his [its?] brilliance?

Dear Baldwin,
1- ...the danger of sin, anyhow, l changed THE into ALL.
2...will get a virtue: ...will become a virtue
3- ...no not only the face, but Christ in my heart.
Thank you for your interest.
4- No, Baldwin. I've changed my mind because l prefer to say THE DANGER, to mean the DANGER OF SIN.

“2...will get a virtue: ...will become a virtue”

Sorry, but “will get” means “will obtain” not “become”.  In any case,  to say that “the danger of sin” will become a virtue not only raises the question of which virtue this danger will become, but is an absurdity since it is a claim that if we fall prey to the danger of sin we will experience one of the following virtues: honesty, curage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, prudence.

“3- ...no not only the face, but Christ in my heart”.

But you didn’t say that.

Nor does this answer my question about what it is that the face of Christ will tell me when I start to see his [its?] brilliance.  

“I prefer to say THE DANGER, to mean the DANGER OF SIN.”

Unfortunately, the only place where the deictic phrase “the danger”  means “the danger of sin” is in your head. What you prefer to be the case regarding what “the danger” means is not apparent.

"Sin can spread the views of horror    
in your heart and tint its darkness,"    
 
I wonder if you realize that in the lines above you are saying that sin is able to relieve a heart's darkness since the verb "tint" means ." to give a small amount of color to (something)".  
 
(https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/tint)  
 
What's more, any linguistic charm you might lay claim to being a master of displaying in your work is absent in this piece given how limited and repetitious its vocabulary is.  
 
 darkness,    
 dark  
 darken.    
 darkened

Change the  danger [of sin} into welfare,  
where what's sin will {become] a virtue  .

So "welfare "is a location?

Yes, it is a location, but in our hearts.

But "welfare" is a state of being" not a place in which something is or can be located.

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/welfare

So does it really make sense to say that it's in a state of being in our hearts where something like adultery will become a virtue?

Everything is felt and directed from the heart. If the heart is sound and happy everything is perfect. And you are surprised that l don't answer you!

No, I'm not surprised.  And that's because I know that you cannot answer me honestly without admitting that what you write makes no sense.

So when the heart is happy adultery becomes a virtue?

Will change and become a virtue.

So adultery will no longer be a sinful act but something that is both permissible and encouraged like the virtues of honesty, compassion, generosity, etc.are?

"Change the danger [or sin]...,"   is a ridiculous statement since sin, by definition,  is something that is always going to be dangerous to the welfare of human beings. and cannot be transformed, even by God,  into something it is not.   Did you mean "resist the inclination to sin"?

How clever you are! You can guess what l mean. You always guess what l mean. Does that mean what l say is clear, or you are a clever man?

The fact that one has to guess at what you mean to say, even if the guess is a correct one,  is a sure sign that you have not written clearly and have failed to actually convey what you thought you were conveying.  
   
In any case, did you or did you not intend to say  "resist the inclination to sin" when you wrote, "change the danger into welfare"?  
 
Cue the red herring.

Oh, Jesus Christ be praised!
According to J-Z,
the savior’s countenance beheld
displays
that sins like lust
and pride and sloth
and gluttony and, yes,
adultery and greed
when taken up as if
soul’s food
are things assured
to make us blessed
since they’ve obtained
sweet rectitude!
So J-Z says!

1-How dare you, Baldwin? How can you write in such a careless way? The explanation of the first stanza is as follows if you don't understand English and the poetic language.
Change what is dangerous to you, SIN, into WELFARE which is good for you.
Then SIN will disappear from your life and will be changed with something new which is VIRTUE. and welfare. Then Christ will appear inside you, and His appearance will tell you what has happened.

"The explanation of the first stanza is as follows if you don't understand English and the poetic language."

But if I do understand English and "the poetic language"  (more deixis),   the explanation of what you were saying in the first stanza of your piece is not as follows?


"Change what is dangerous to you, SIN, into WELFARE which is good for you.
Then SIN will disappear from your life and will be changed [exchanged?]  with something new which is VIRTUE. and welfare. Then Christ will appear inside you, and His appearance will tell you what has happened."

Oh, come now.  This may be what you intended to convey in the first stanza of your piece.  But it is not what you actually conveyed by what you wrote.

For instance, there's nothing there about Christ appearing inside anyone, And one would think if one experienced the change you speak of, one would hardly need to have what happened explained to him/her.

In any case, the very fact that you are explaining what your first stanza was asserting is an admission that you failed to make this clear in what you wrote.

I explained it because you wrote that shameful poem of yours. How dare you?

"I explained it because you wrote that shameful poem of yours"

The issue is how the fact that you had to explain what you wrote in order to make clear what you were attempting to say in the first stanza of your piece shows that you had not clearly conveyed anything near what you claim you were actually asserting and left open what you wrote in that stanza to alternative and justifiable readings of what you were asserting.

In any case,  thanks for noting that what I wrote, shameful as you regard it to be, is a poem.

BTW,  you tell readers that they should "Change the danger into welfare" without telling us how you think this can be done.  Given that you are acting as a preacher here who speaks from a stance of personal moral rectitude and who condemns sin,  it's curious that you should leave this out.  

So you think that

“Change what is dangerous to you, SIN, into WELFARE which is good for you”

is what

“Change the  danger into welfare,”

clearly and unambiguously conveys (despite the deixis there) to anyone who reads it.

And  that what you said when you wrote

“where what's sin will get a virtue”

could not help but be read as  saying    

“Then SIN will disappear from your life and will be changed with [to?] something new which is VIRTUE. and welfare.”

And do you think that when a reader reads

“as the face of Christ will tell you  
when you start to see His brilliance.”

he/she perceives without a doubt that what you were saying was  

“Then Christ will appear inside you, and His appearance will tell you what has happened”?

"It's not odd as Christ, the Maker  
of the earth, "

Please show me where in the New Testament and/or in the Nicene or Chalcedonian Creeds,  Jesus is proclaimed to be the: "maker" of the earth.

"has made what raptures".  

Are you using "rapture" as a verb?

Yes, l am using  RAPTURE as a verb..

"Yes, l am using  RAPTURE as a verb.."  
   
I take it that you know that "rapture" is transitive and therefore needs an object.   And if you say that what you were conveying with the phrase "what raptures" is that Jesus knows "what it is that fills with joy", you still need to say who or what it is that is to be so filled for your assertion to be complete and sensible.  
   
And where is your NT and Creedal evidence that Jesus was the "maker" of the world?

Who do you think can be raptured? Isn't it known to everybody?

"Who do you think can be [en]raptured? Isn't it known to everybody?"

Animals can be filled with joy.

In any case,  the issue isn't whether it's known to everybody who or what can be enraptured.  It's whether you've said who it is that can be filled with joy.

There's also the issue of the validity of your claim that Jesus is the maker of that which fills things with joy.

I am writing TROCHAIC TETRAMETETER not free lines like you. I have to depend on the intelligence of the readers.

"I am writing TROCHAIC TETRAMETETER not free lines like you.  
 
So maintaining a meter    
 
-- which you do not do consistently as is apparent in this line:  
 
        WHO can CAUSE you LOTS of desPAIR  
 
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y627Km9C_zo  
 
is more important than making sense and using English well.  
 
"I have to depend on the intelligence of the readers".  
 
To do what?  To make sense of what you are saying?  To say what you have left unsaid?  To unpack what you've said in your head but not on the page? If so, you are admitting that what you write is unfinished.  
 
In any case, what you actually rely on for their thinking that what you've said should be accepted as true is their ignorance, especially of how ungrounded in Scripture or tradition your claims about Jesus being the "maker" of the world are, o accept what you assert is true.  
 
And by the way,  you are confusing the fact that my lines are often not of equal length with my not maintaining a solid meter. within them.  Would you care to show that the lines in my "shameful" piece are not consistently iambic?