It isn't about being nice, Lon.
I don't know you and I am not here to make friends. I am here to debate doctrine and defend the truth as well as the righteous character of God. So long as you engage the debate with a modicum of honestly then I'm as patient as Moses and will respond to your arguments with as much honest effort as I know how to muster.
As it is, however, all you do is belly ache about how mean I am and crow about how theologically astute and erudite you are while ignoring every argument presented against your doctrine just as you've done here. You acknowledge that the arguments are on point and valid and yet you choose, instead of responding to the argument, to take yet another opportunity to insult me and whine about how I've treated you at some point in the distant past that I can't remember ever doing in the first place. That's not to say that I deny saying something that you found offensive but merely that I don't recall what it was or why I said it. I don't remember because I don't care, Lon. There is really only one person on this whole website that I truly despise and you aren't it. Again, I do not know you. What I say is said in response to whatever it is you say. I don't go looking for reasons to insult people. When someone says something idiotic then I call it out. If they persists then its them that I call an idiot because they deserve nothing else. If, on the other hand, they respond with a question or additional arguments then I respond to those arguments just as I would any other. I am very consistent and nearly every word I've ever written on this website is still here for anyone to read as proof of that consistency. In short, I do not suffer fools lightly and I do not throw pearls before swine and the vast majority of people who think its fun to debate doctrine on the internet happen to be foolish pigs and so there's not many of them that are going to find me pleasant. So be it.
Now, if you'd care to respond to my arguments, I have no doubt that we are quite capable of having a productive two way conversation about something more substantive and interesting than either your hurt feelings or your personal opinions about how I conduct myself on a web forum against people who mostly have no idea what they're talking about.
As for my "engaging actual scriptures", has it ever occurred to you that people who have been debating these issues for any length of time might understand that its a fool's errand to engage the debate on the premise of your own proof texts? In other words, some quoted passage of scripture is not the common ground you pretend it to be because Calvinists quite literally cannot seem to read. Actually, it isn't that they cannot read, its that the words have a different meaning in their minds than in anyone else's mind who reads the same passage. You're no exception! To think that either Matthew 16:24 or Philippians 2:3-4 has anything to do with "avoiding free will" is nothing short of delusional. The actual words in those passages simply do not say anything about that whatsoever. Your Calvinist filter twists the meaning of the words into something totally dissimilar to what they are in reality. And this is by no means an isolated example. The Calvinist has altered the meaning of practically every major theological idea. The Calvinist's concept of love, hatred, justice, righteousness, sovereignty, will, sin, etc, etc, etc all mean something quite different in the mind of a Calvinist than they do to every other human being who knows the English language. You want to "Forget Calvin: Simply deal with scriptures." but cannot see that you bring Calvin to your every reading of scripture!
So, the result is that, at best, someone on my side of the debate can explain how they don't have anything to do with the point the Calvinist is making (or the equivalent) or we can post our own proof texts. Either way, we are accused of ignoring or mishandling the scripture. The fact that you are doing the equivalent never registers because instead of debating the premises of your doctrine you presuppose the veracity of those premises and argue based on that presumption. In short, you beg the question and then declare victory when anyone either doesn't accept your premises or points out the fallacious reasoning because they "refuse to engage the scripture".
Of course, what alternative do you have? You cannot debate the premises of your doctrine because even you realize that you loose every actual debate you engage in! You cannot accept the dictionary definitions of words like "sovereignty" because your all of your proof texts vanish into thin air when you do that. You cannot discuss the history of your doctrine because you find yourself sitting in the lap of a homosexual Greek philosopher inside of two posts. You cannot even discuss the character of the men who founded your religion without figuring out how to explain away the fact that Calvin wrote "Institutes" at the age of ripe old age of 26 after a whopping three years of private study. In short, everywhere you step is wobbly and uncertain unless you presuppose the veracity of your doctrine and make every argument contingent upon that supposition.
