Jeremiah was a kook

[JohnM]

(Perceptive readers will note that the thread title bears a slight resemblance to the title of a one act play by Rothbard. This is entirely intentional. For just as the title of Rothbard's play gives little clue as to the content, so it is with the title of this thread.)

For lo, this is yet another thread on the subject of the hour - namely "Rand".

For I have been reflecting on the two Pauls. And it seems that there is a widespread perception among posters on these fora that there is a very fundamental difference between them. It seems to me that it could be summed up simply that Ron Paul is a prophet (as Newsweek famously pointed out), while Rand Paul is a politician.

This probably explains the way I feel about them. As a believer who loves the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, I much prefer prophets to politicians. And so it is with the Pauls. I love Ron Paul. I am passionate about him. He inspires me. As for Rand Paul - well, I'd vote for him. But passion? I'm sorry, but there isn't any.

It may also explain other things about them. Prophets were capable of drawing great crowds. They flocked to hear John the Baptist: "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him." (Mark 1:5) But ultimately, he was a voice crying in the wilderness. Sound familiar? And in fact, some people called him a kook. (OK - in their terminology, it was "He has a demon" (Luke 7:33). And a survey of the life of Jeremiah indicates pretty much the same thing. Hence the words of Jesus Christ to his disciples not to worry too much if they were called kooks, because that was always the way it was for prophets: "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you . . . for that is how their fathers treated the prophets.." Luke 6:22-23.

For this reason, prophets don't make good politicians. People hate them. They exclude them (e.g. from debates. And conventions. And political office. And . . .). And they insult them. ('Kook' is the favored noun for describing them.) And so, while prophets may draw the crowds, and while they may be loved by the true believers, they remain frozen out of positions of influence, and rarely get elected to public office.

So no, I don't love Rand. How can I? He's a politician. But if all men speak well of him, and are prepared to vote for him, as they voted for the false prophets that came before him, then perhaps some good might come.

[LibertyEagle]

They have different roles, but their objective is the same.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

[JohnM]

They have different roles, but their objective is the same.

Precisely.

p.s. You were pretty quick there, LE!

[Aratus]

i like LE

[Aratus]

the prophet daniel
was easier to talk
to. jeremiah was
into his own visions.
poor poor poor joab.







global warming or
peak oil or climate
change or worse?
why did isaac newton
fixate on A.D 2060?

[Danke]

Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

[Tinnuhana]

Daniel was unique in some ways: he was a prophet, but also a top official in the administration of the country that removed him from his conquered country when he was young. Without that influence, I doubt if three magi would have had a clue many years later.

[jmdrake]

Jeremiah was a bullfrog.