ok I just downloaded this film its called john safran vs god. The main reason I downloaded it was john safran goes to utah dresses up like a morman ( my former religion ) and preaches atheism door to door . well apart from this being very funny on the same show he had some street interviews where he asks people whether they thought a certain reactionary saying was from the dali lama or the pope . on everyone people guessed the pope and it was in fact the dali lama The dali lama said that homosexual sex and lesbian sex were a sin. that oral and anal sex between hetrosexual couples was a sin. he said that masterbation is forbidden . that sex in the daytime was a sin !!!!!!! now why is it that the dali lama seems to be thought by lots of people to be kind of right on, and the pope is seen as a arch reactionary .
hmmm, and where did you get that quote, be sure its true won't you....from what i know of the Dali lamas beliefs, there is no such thing as sin in the buddhist religion, only right and wrong actions for the good of all and those that lead to nirvana, and those that hinder us. the precepts state that sexual immorality is bad for the soul, but as far as i know it does not state what that consists of. Please correct me if im wrong, im only just learning about buddhism.
its going to take a while to go through it At a press conference in 1997-JUN, he commented: "From a Buddhist point of view [lesbian and gay sex]...is generally considered sexual misconduct". This belief is not based on the partners being of the same gender. In his book "Beyond Dogma," he has written that "homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." Buddhism prohibits oral, manual and anal sex for everyone - both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, these restrictions refer only to members of the Buddhist faith. will post more
Buddhism in general is anti-sex-for-pleasure, no doubt about that. It's just seen as entanglement in illusion. But on the other point, I think the Dali Lama influeneces a hell of a lot less people than the Pope- there are about 360 million Buddhists in the world, and only a small minority are Tibetan Buddhists who acknowledge the Dali Lama. There are an estimated 2 billion christians. The Dali Lama seems a nice enough fellow in some ways - but when I've tried to read any of his works I've actually found it incredibly boring. Ratzinger on the other hand is a man definitely not on my list of dinner guests.
The whole reason people see the Dali Lama as a nice guy is because we look at it from a western perspective. We associate the Christian church with being the boring repressive squares because they are the people we know and understand and in many cases were brought up with even if we didn't really want to be, whereas to many westerners, Buddhism seems really exotic and mystical and all-accepting etc. Well, tis what I think anyway
maybe going off topic slightly and I know both of them are technically non violentish but who would win in a fight . Id like to add that to the discussion if you have any opinions on such a thing as a pope lama punch up . I would bet on the dali lama although I feel hes more non violent the pictures of the present pope to me make him look frail . I may be lowering the tone of this debate but the idea just came to me
lol, what you smoking on J2Mad??? This is soooo true. (although the Dali Lama probably IS a nice guy anyhow. I loved Pope John II too. would def liked to have hung out with the both these guys)
I would back the Pope, he's quite the mean mother. Hitler Youth, Nazi flak gunner, a-and whatsmore, his blood burns with a righteous anger! Can't really picture the Dalai Lama getting much of a freak on when faced with an 88. Go fascist catholics all the way. Great name for a band!
Oh i thought you meant who would win in a boxing match, Dali VS Ratzinger. Isn't there a computer game where you can have different rappers fight it out? Like Foxy Brown VS Dr Dre, maybe there should be one for religious leaders. I do actually find this discussion interesting, but i couldn't help lowering the tone. X
