THE PRESENT WITH IF

Three notes on these verses:

"I love you present as you are my chance
to read, to write, to indite, and to muse.
You are the only joy that life can give
if in man's heart, there is the soul of God."

1.  If you are speaking to the "present"  in the first of these, you need to use commas of address, i.e.,  I love you, Present, as you are my chance ....", otherwise you are saying that you love some unspecified person or thing when her/she/it is in a particular place with you.

2.  Your meter is inconsistent  in the second:

to READ, to WRIte, TO inDITE, AND to MUSE

3.  Besides making the question-begging claim that God has a soul,  you end up in the last lines saying that life can give more than one joy to men if they DON"T have God's soul in their hearts.

I'm also curious to know what someone wishing to write poetry well would learn from what you set out here about how to do it.

"never deem the past
to be upbeat or full of pleasant scenes."

Why not?

"Don't think of coming time;

Why not?

"it's not your own".

But it will be.

"You possess none except the present time".

Bad English.  None means "not one"/"not any".  It is a solecism to say "you possess not one of coming time".  Given the meaning of "none", you needed to have written "none of the coming timeS".   And "present time" is not one of the coming times.  If you meant to say,  "the only time you possess is the one that's NOW", you've hardly done so.  And it is hardly clear why one's possessing only the now is a good, let alone a compelling reason for not thinking about what is to come.  So this is not only poorly written,  it's conceptual bunk.

According to LONGMAN D O C E, [ NONE] 3-not any such thing or person. Be sure of what you say before saying it. Why did you use One and not Any? To make the mistake bigger?

Here's what Longman says regarding "none":    
    
none    
  
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English    
none1 /nʌn/ ●●● S1 W2 pronoun     
   
1 not any amount of something or ***not one of a group of people or things***    
   
none of    
   
2 → will/would have none of something    
   
3 → none but somebody    
   
4 → none other than somebody    

USAGE: None, neither
•You use none to talk about a group of three or more things or people:
   
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/none    
   
You have not only misrepresented what Longman says, but you have misinterpreted what it asserts, especially since "coming time" is not a person.  And not "any of coming time" is a solecism.  Is "coming time" a quantity?    
   
And why did you not answer my questions about your assertion concerning what's in the past and why one should not think about the future, not to mention what the lessons are about how to write good poetry that are here in your piece?  
 

I wonder why
a man who tells us not to deem the past
as something that contains a wealth of pleasant scenes
will keep referring to events
that played out on a crucial day
in 33 CE
as glorious, love filled,
to be remembered, too
as those that brought and brings
salvation unto men like me and you.

And then there is the way,
despite his bold assertions that to think on "coming times"
as ours, since they, as yet, are not realities,
is foolishness,  
he keeps rejoicing in his visions of
what he claims he’s certain is his future destiny.

I think the charge of inconsistency of thought
and writing rubbish, not to mention poorly syntaxed, "telly"  verse,
is meet
to lay upon this preachy “poet’s feet.

What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time.
I am not in a law court to answer your question. Do you criticize other poets? I don't know what to say about you.

For this sentence:

"What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time"

to be good English, you should have written,  "What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time showing that it is".

But more importantly,   are you claiming that what I posted is not from Longman's entry on "none",  despite the fact that if you click on the link to the dictionary that I posted, you'll see that it is?

Perhaps you'd be good enough to post the entire text of the entry you took your "quote" of Longman's from (or at least the page number of the Dictionary on which the entry can be found) so that readers here can see that you are right and I am wrong.
 There's really no good reason for you not to do so if  that's the case (that it would be a waste of time is not one of them, since it should only take a few seconds to do so, and you obviously have easy access to the Dictionary.  And the most obvious reason for you to refuse my request is that you don't want to show that you are wrong in what you claim.

But more importantly,  even if your quote IS from Longman's, it does not show that you have used (or know how to use) "none" correctly.  And that's the real issue at hand.

And you might want to note that your excuse for not answering my other questions is one that is used by those who know that they are wrong in what they've claimed,  but want to avoid admitting that there really is nothing to be said that would show the claims to be valid.

Before l read your long explanation, correct the second paragraph, and change THAT into ON SHOWING WHAT. Your addition is not necessary. However, l am not going to read your extensive writing before l see it corrected. I am not going to waste more time... DON'T YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT. Is my correspondence very formal? Stop doing that Baldwin. I don't like to correct your mistakes. It's a little bit rough. I don't want to use another word.

Another dodge.

What I said you should have written for your sentence to make sense was "l am not going to waste more time showing that [what I said is to be found at point 3 in the Longman entry on "none"] is [to be found there]".  To say that it should be "l am not going to waste more time **on showing WHAT** it [= point 3 in the Longman entry] is" misses the point since the issue is the truth of your claim that Longman says what you clearly claim that dictionary says regarding the meaning of "none".

No correction of what I wrote is needed.

You wrote:
to be good English, you should have written,  "What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time showing that it is".
Did you write that or didn't you?  Is that correct?

"What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time showing that it is"  
 
Yes,  I wrote that -- in order to make plain what you were claiming when YOU wrote: " What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time."

Am I wrong in thinking that what you meant was  "What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time showing that it is [indeed from the dictionary]"?  
 
If I am not wrong, then as anyone can see by looking at the entry the Longman dictionary entry on "none" (which I reproduced and gave the link to),  your claim about what is set out in point 3 in that dictionary's entry on "none" is false.

It is useless to write to you. You never admit your mistakes, and you have nothing to do except writing extensively about what can be admitted in a few words. This is a proof that you have nothing to do.

A dodge of my question.  Whether I make mistakes in what I write has no bearing on whether I am wrong in thinking that what you intended to convey when you said "What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time" was   "What l wrote about NONE is from the dictionary, and l am not going to waste more time showing that it is [indeed from the dictionary]"?

And I suspect that the reason you have dodged it is that you don't want to admit that your claim has no basis in fact.

Beyond that,  I must have missed the memo that stated that I had to listen to you about how I should spend my time.