Almost all these posts have all been written before. I either go and strip out stuff from my former blog or I go cut and paste from Theologia.

This is what I have realized: Having a serious piece of argumentation on the web is simply useless. I have many serious pieces up and no one has offered me any interaction about them. My defense of Norm Shepherd? Vanishing without a trace amid all the alleged “debate.” I could go on and on. The only interaction has been Guy Waters’ hallucinatory “criticism” which he was especially appointed to do so that no one else would have to contaminate their mental hygeine. Static pieces of argumentation are easily suppressible: one merely refuses to read them.

And thus blogging becomes a better means for forcing people to face the truth. Even though an essay can be ignored, there is something irresistable about seeing “What will he say this time?” So I simply find different ways to republish myself as blog entries. Everything I wrote about the righteousness of God came from Theologia. Everything I have recently blogged about imputation or about Rich Lusk is also old news.

Nothing new here. The blog is going to tempt people to adopt the Nietszchean idea of eternal recurrence as I continually recycle remarks ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I just have decided to repeat myself endlessly in the hope that the attraction of controversy will be enough to overcome the aversion to being challenged.