THE EARTH IN HEAVEN

"The Lord Himself appeared on earth to man.
He was the Son of God, and God Himself.
God showed man everything He talked about,
the angels and the devils and His saints."

No, he didn't.  After all, Luke tells us not only that the Son of God was not God,  but that God did NOT show everything Jesus "talked about"  to all men.

"At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

So once again, you show yourself imposing upon the Gospel witness a theology it does not attest to, and are therefore likely to put off readers of your pieces who know that you are doing so.

Dear Baldwin,
1- What denomination do you belong to. Don't tell me it's not your business if you want us to write to each other.
2- It's not necessary to agree with me about every single point. This is poetry.

Did Luke say what I quoted from his Gospel or not?  

https://biblehub.com/luke/10-21.htm

And does the (questionable) fact that your piece is poetry really give you leave to make theological claims that are  bogus, let alone imply that readers should take them as true?  
 
And did you mean to say "Don't tell me that it's none of my business [what denomination you belong to]?

"The LORD Himself appeared on EARTH to MAN.
He was the Son of GOD, and  GOD Himself.
GOD showed MAN everything He talked about,
the angels and the devils and His saints.

Good parents and pure people DEAR to us
are those whom the LORD takes to be His folk.
They live on EARTH among us and quite near,
and fill the EARTH with joy, with love and cheer.

We LOVE them on the EARTH, and they LOVE us,
and they MAKE heaven such a lovely place.
They FEEL so content there and MAKE us FEEL
as happy as we are on the DEAR EARTH. "

Sorry, but this an "all tell no show" piece that's filled with repetitious and prosaic language.

Is there anything in the form and style and wording of this piece that you think a would-be poet should imitate/emulate if he or she is to produce well- written and evocative poetry?

1- lf you want me to communicate with you, tell me about your denomination. That's because you argue a lot about religion.
2- You can rarely find a poem written by poets laureate completely free from break in rhythm, even much more than my poems. If we don't want to speak about your poetry.
3- Poetry is taste and ideas, the techniques l like can't completely, and necessarily agree with yours.

Please tell me what my  (or anyone's) denomination has to do with whether or not  Luke says what I've quoted him as saying?
.
Where was the issue of "breaks in rhythm" brought up?  

And how is this incomplete sentence: "If we don't want to speak about your poetry." (it lacks an apodosis) good English?

Poetry is language.  No idea can be expressed, let alone expressed well,  without the use of it.   But what does your piece teach anyone who might wish to be a good poet about the techniques that are to be used in the writing of it?

Dear Baldwin,
My protasis is telling you about BREAK IN RHYTHM in a previous sentence. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the apodosis. Don't you think so? It's not necessary to remind you of yesterday.
Do you think it is a good and amusing evening to spend it in such a way, writing to you about useless subjects like these?

Yes, your subjects are useless.

And thanks for yet more dodges of my questions and observations.