Some might say that Jesus was the most influential person in religious history and I realize this is debatable. He still remains glorified by many.
According to American thinker, Forbes magazine annointed Barack Obama as the most powerful person in the world. (This is probably debatable too?)
It goes on to say that the US is the most powerful country in the world in terms of innovation, economy and military power.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ … erson.html
For me Jesus focused on those inner qualities that would deem a person powerful depending on the observer and whilst I don't know much about Obama his focus tends to be on making the US a more powerful nation therefore focusing on those outer qualities that would deem a powerful person that helps to create a powerful nation.
In another breath I wonder if powerful is not all it's made out to be and whether it would be more relative to the observer?
It appears we have gone from a world that views the outer advancement as more valuable to existence than the inner advancement when both would probably be more useful.
What are your views?
i doubt jesus was most influential person in the world...If we talk about religious domain , most influential person was muhammad...but yes jesus , muhammad are influential and collectively still influence half of the world , in some way or other...
in coming times their influence would erode and new influential person would take over...so i guess it keeps changing...
coming to how nation operates , obama is most influential person...the influence comes form stature of USA and how many governments it does influence and also un bodies...
Perhaps that applies to governments but does it apply to individuals? You can control a person on the outside by rules and regulations just as religions attempt to do but both the religions or the governments cannot control what is on the inside. Influence some for sure but for the most part not control it.
@penny on govt ....usa influences many govts in the world...those govt form policies ...these policies impact quality of life and in turn influence how people react , think ...for eg...if economic conditions are difficult....people tend to seek happiness or support some where else or remain pessimistic towards life ,seek refuge in religion,fear etc...so indirectly it influences if not directly...in that case Obama as president of usa does influence person living in say pakistan in some way...so going by that he is most influential
We are still talking outer conditions. If we seek happiness or whatever in an external world it is like a drug addiction (or what I imagine a drug addiction to be). An endless need to be fulfilled with no end no matter how good our life might appear to be on the outside. If conditions aren't so great externally it makes the search for fulfilment a much more difficult journey. When finding inner peace and happiness within our external environment has little or no effect on our inner well being. We can either allow another individual or government to influence us is what it comes down to.
Therein lies the difference between Barrack and Jesus. When we take the Jesus/God call it whatever you like drug once found we then cannot be affected by the obama/government drug that requires constant doses.
@penny out conditions do influence human beings...dont they?...no one is happy with empty stomach.. i doubt .jesus himself would have been happy with empty stomach...and coming to inner conditions...jesus is marketed well but if u go by solution to inner conditions , buddha gave best answer according to my view... jesus was somethng which those zone had never seen...he is marketted well but buddha gives best available solution....may be some would come up with even better some day...
I don't disagree that outer conditions do affect some, they certainly do however not in all cases. There are many hungry people who are happy. There are many disabled people who are happy. They have in some way found a way to make peace with themselves no matter what is arising externally.
Whether it is Jesus or Buddha they both have excellent solutions. Going within is what they both advocate in different ways.
As I stated earlier each can work with the other (inner and outer) however if the focus on the outer dominates the inner is negated and the search for happiness is a very long journey.
Given the number of adherrents to Christianity and Islam are both around 1.2 billion it would seem to be a tie, until one contrasts how hard it is to be Christian, Buhdist or Jew in a Muslim country versus being Muslim in a predominantly Christian country. In fact, just the term "predominantly Christian" suggests greater diversity in those countires.
As for political, economic, cultural and military influence - the US may be the current global power but that position has been held by other nations before making their heads of government/state globally important. The mere existance of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the US speaks volumes about the peak of British power and how fleeing that power.
The President of the US will be pwerful, not as the functoin of his personal power but as a function of US power. Jesus, we are told in the Gospels, rejected temporal, material power when it was offered to him as a temptation, eschewing it for heavenly power. The lesson taught by this rejection is that tempral power is called temporal for a reason. It is temporary, ephemeral in the grand scheme of things, in nature not eternal.
In this way it is a category error to compare Obama's power with Jesus' power.
@undermyhat jesus's influence is obviously there and wuld remain for another 50 yrs ...barack obama's influence is there based on his post...nothing is permanent...what influence jesus has right now is diminishing in comparision to what influence muhammad has and slowly muhammad's influence would increase...but that too would get diminished...something else would take over...
There is little evidence that Christianity is on the wane throughout the world. The number of Christians may be on the decline in Europe - this has been the case since the mid-60s. It is surging in the old #rd world. Islam is at a cross roads and the radicalism we see is the death throes of an unreconstructed Islam that dies not comport with the modern world.
As for freedom, there is no economic system more rooted in freedom than "capitalism" - an antiquated and marxist notion of the real thing. The price regualted free market allows entrance and exit, aspiration, success, failure, wealth, poverty - all without the impositoin of external class structures. If one fails as the son of a rich man, the son of a party official, a hero of the fatherland,the son of a lord, etc...other systems seek to mitigate that failure. "Capitolism" as practiced by the current American system has metigated against the failure of those engaged in stupid business practices - GM, AIG, FannyMae - all tot he detriment of the general economy.
It is politics not economics that is the weakness of the American system.
I would disagree, on some levels. Yes, power is fleeting and Obama is simply a politician. But the American agenda transcends politics. It isn't about freedom or democracy either. It is capitalism and consumerism. That cuts to the heart of the individual. It addresses what you aspire to, what you dream of and what you perceive as making your life worthwhile.
That agenda is in direct conflict with the notion that you are the key to your own hapiness. It's proving to be more and more of a problem. It drives war and unrest. You can't find peace and happiness through that route without infringing on others. For every gain you make, you raise the bar of want in the heart of another individual driven by that belief.
So, comparing Obama to Jesus skims the surface of the question, but the question is valid. America is exporting a philosophy that needs to be analyzed and addressed.
Agree with much of what you say and you have made a good point about the temporary of external power. Perhaps the comparison was an error yet as you might see, from some comments, there is a lot of opinions about outer power.
I think the message of Jesus involves focusing on the inner self, without worrying about how others might perceive your journey.
Obama is pushing the corporate agenda, which is predicated on the need to convince the individual that the perception of others is all that matters. Consumerism can't flourish if we don't worry about what others think. The American agenda is at direct odds with inner advancement.
Don't pay too much attention to the assessment of Obama by Forbes. We are very proud to have shown the world that substance matters more than race; but he isn't all that.
That tends to reinforce that powerful is relative. Many believe Jesus is all powerful, many might believe Obama is. Many however does not equal all. Forbes might need to reassess what the whole world is.
Living our lives inwardly or outwardly based on what others think is rarely if ever useful.
How do you mean substance?
What he had to say. People think our politics were prejudiced. They weren't. The minorities who run, many times, run on a minority agenda. They came to their position because of minority support. You can't win a national election if you aren't perceived as a candidate for all of the people. Obama recognized this and used that to win. We'd vote in an armadillo if it presented itself as reasonable, rational and fair across the board.
Sorry...but your president's name is spelled BARACK ... Just had to get that out...
And who compares a politician to Jesus...
What sane person give a politician the idea that he could be Jesus? Over here in the UK we've suffered enough from Tony Blair's 'messiah' complex. We don't want them saving the world, we want politicians running their own constituencies effeiciently and having the proper input into running the country well
John Key would be how her Prime Minister spells his name. For comparisons of Obama and Jesus one need only, fully, research the rhetoric and images of the 2008 US presidential campaign. Obama was frequently depicted with halos and beatific glow.
Sorry about the spelling. As undermyhat says Barack is not our president. John Key is.
The empahsis on comparing was not about politics or religion. It wast more about the different perceptions of what powerful is. In other words what determines a powerful person and what is this powerful influence they might have on an individual.
This is what the article said:
"At the end of last year, Forbes Magazine anointed Barack Obama as the most powerful person in the world. In summarizing their reason for choosing Obama, the editors stated,
Despite faddish American declinism, the U.S. remains, indisputably, the most powerful nation in the world, with the largest, most innovative economy and the deadliest military."
The word "anoited" is used as political ammunition against Obama by this article. It's a favorite ploy of the conservative right. The rest of this article bashes Obama. You are trying to compare apples to oranges when you compare a politician to a religious icon of over 2,000 years. Obama, if he wins this election will only be in office for 8 years.
As far as your proposition of inner to outer as being more powerful, again you are trying to compare apples and oranges. You are right they are both relative. If inner peace is more powerful, then one could said a monk would probably have more power. If outer infulence is more powerful, then I would say Guttenberg is more powerful and influential. He invented moving type whiche allows us to publish the written word. That allowed many very influential documents to be published, including the bible, the koran, the torah, and the constituion of the United States. Those documents have much more influence than any one person, but they do influence how people feel about other people. If it wasn't for movable type, we wouldn't even have the internet.
The true inner power is not relative; it remains absolute.
After all, this universe belongs to its creator, and He can do anything to it He wants.
According to the latest news, the creator of the universe was the god particle that occurred during the big bang.
The conclusion that the newly discovered particle is indeed the Higgs Boson has not been confirmed by the people at Cern, although, mathmatically, they are confident. The Higgs Boson is no more the creator of the universe than the other particles, but rather the mechanism thereof.
Were you addressing me? I didn't propose either as being more powerful then the other. One may dominate perhaps but neither inner or outer is more powerful then the other. If we negate one for the other is where it becomes not useful. When the inner is present the outer will not have domination over the inner and vice versa.
Barack has zero power. He's a puppet, just like the preceding several presidents, bought and paid for by the corporations we've grown to love and hate. The same ones who brought you 9/11 (and perhaps even 7/11). Perhaps the last real president was JFK, but they taught him a lesson and a lesson to all succeeding presidents. Ronnie may have gotten out of hand, but the failed attempt put the fear of the puppet master back into him.
Emile hit pretty close when she talked about consumerism. Really, it's all about ego -- the heart of selfishness. Obama is merely a pawn in a far larger game.
When the puppet masters needed a hick and goof-off as president, they got George W. Why? Because their "false flag" operation needed to place the government under the aura of fallibility -- incapable of pulling off the greatest coup in the history of humanity. Why "coup?" Because it shifted the power of the people to power of the corporation.
The events of 9/11 were a false flag operation very much like Operation Northwoods, which was written by the top Pentagon brass of the 60s, advocating murdering American citizens for political and military gain. Sweet. Just the kind of treason America needs, right?
All 3 WTC buildings collapsed because of controlled demolition. After nearly a decade believing the Bush conspiracy theory, this fact now seems painfully obvious. And it's only high school physics (not rocket science). All 3 buildings fell as if the cold steel beams didn't exist. What made them vanish? Explosives and thermate cutter charges. And Al Qaeda did not have months of unfettered access to all 3 buildings. But the CIA was tenants of the 3rd building, and 2 Bush family members headed up the security company in charge of the World Trade Center. Curious!
If not Al Qaeda, then who? And why would our 2 most recent presidents warn against asking dangerous questions about 9/11? Something to hide?
While we're talking about lying presidents, here's a couple of short videos about Bush. In one, he looks as though he's the proverbial kid with his hand caught in the cookie jar. In the other, he can't keep his lies straight.
But after Bush, we got relief! The silver-tongued devil himself. From folksy to the slick. I supported the guy 100%, but when he took office it was one betrayal after the other. And what's with that Nobel prize? What did he do to deserve that? Who was pulling the strings in Sweden? That was completely unreal.
Yeah, he's got power. Real power. Walk-on-water, turn-off-the-storm kind of power. His mission was to help us wake up from the poison of ego, to snap out of our attachment to the physical (consumerism, etc).
Barack Obama is a joke, working for the evil murderers who would like to kill billions to whittle humanity down to something productive and manageable -- the perfect slave society.
Revelation talked about it 2000 years ago -- the beast. After 9/11, I originally thought Al Qaeda was the beast, with its numerous cells worldwide. No, it's far closer to home. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are the beast -- Mammon (greed).
When the late Aaron Russo was friends with Nicholas Rockefeller, he learned of their evil plans. They were trying to recruit Mr. Russo, because he had proven himself as a mover and shaker. He wouldn't be bought. In fact, he was repulsed by their plans to perpetrate some evil event which would give "us" Iraq and Afghanistan (11 months before 9/11). He despised their plans to have us all microchipped without which we will be incapable of buying or selling anything. The Corporate Party even has their entertainment arm put a microchip into James Bond, and everyone wants to be like 007. As it says in Revelation, the beast will place its mark upon us without which we will be incapable of buying or selling anything.
So, kiddies. Get ready for a bumpy ride. Understand it or not, those who don't get on board will be discarded like so much chaff into the fire. It's a matter of choice. Cling to the things of this world and die; or give up your earthly life and live.
Never underestimate the value of pharmaceuticals.
Powerful Persons Jesus and Barrack
There is a very important distinction between these two entities. Jesus was never delusional enough to think that he was Barack Obama!
Someone had to say it.
by Credence29 months ago
The Constitution requires that an eligible candidate for president must be a naturalized citizen. That means born in the U.S. or subject jurisdiction, or not born on AMERICAN soil but either parent is an American...
by College politico8 years ago
Well after blowing Hillary out 55 to 27 in South Carolina. Do you think this means he has a real shot on super Tuesday?In my mind if he had just beat her with a small margin it wouldn't have meant much since he was...
by gulnazahmad6 years ago
Do you think that religion effects the way we deal in our day-to-day life and the way our personality has been molded? Is drinking, rape, murder, assault and other such things have to do with religion or is it just...
by Rhonda D Johnson4 years ago
I've written a hub describing the effect Constantine and the pagans in the ecumenical counsels had on Christianity. I also read the writings of Justin Martyr where he tried to explain away the embarrassing extent...
by dadibobs4 years ago
Would he get more or less support, if he were white or hispanic?Has the presidents heritage given him an advantage, or has it caused him setbacks?
by giocatore4 years ago
PhoenixV wrote a hub with this title, and concluded that the answer is Led Zeppelin, for various reasons.I countered that the Beatles were most influential because they wrote their own songs, something almost unheard of...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.