Did Gandhi say that?

My friend Adam, passed along to me an article from the NY Times entitled "Falser Words Were Never Spoken."  While I can be mistaken, this article comments on how some quotes of famous people are sometimes not historically stated by the people they are credited to.  


Here is an excerpt towards the end of the article to give you a synopsis:


Thoreau, Gandhi, Mandela — it’s easy to see why their words and ideas have been massaged into gauzy slogans. They were inspirational figures, dreamers of beautiful dreams. But what goes missing in the slogans is that they were also sober, steely men. Each of them knew that thoroughgoing change, whether personal or social, involves humility and sacrifice, and that the effort to change oneself or the world always exacts a price.


Gandhi is credited with a variation of the quote "you must be the change you wish to see in the world."  For those of you who do not know, there is no historical evidence that he stated this line.  


Some might be jaded (perhaps like the author of the Times article sounds to be) that since the line was not actually of the source that it is credited to, it looses a great deal of credibility.  


This is also what many have "against" the words of Jesus in the Bible.  We do not know for certain if Jesus actually stated each and every word that is in red in the Bible.  


Likewise with the apostle Paul who is credited for writing letters he did not pen.  


This line is a wonderful example of the difference in reading for truth (historicity) and reading for Truth (Myth).  


If we were reading for truth, then yes, the quote is not true.  It is not from Gandhi.  It is not true.  


If we are reading for Truth, then yes, the quote if True.  It does not matter if Gandhi stated it or not.  We really much be the change if we want the world to change.  


Gandhi might not have said it.  There might not have been an arc built by Noah. There might not have been an Odysseus tied to mast of a ship.  There might not have been a virgin birth of Jesus.  There might not even be a bodily resurrection of Christ.  That does not make the stories/Myths any less True.  


Truth is more than facts.


Facts do not move people to action (no one supports a child in Africa after hearing the life expectancy of children, which is why they do not use them on the commercials late at night).  


Facts do not transform people (if so then global warming would be a non-issue now).


Facts only support our position and the other person's facts are wrong (which is why MSNBC and FOX each have access to their own set of 'facts' on the government).


Facts do not change the world.


You do. 


Just like Gandhi said.  

Self-defense = self love?

Currently I am reading After the Smoke Clears: The Just War Tradition and Post War Justice. The authors cite another book, Faith and Force" A Christian Debate about War, in which four historical stages in the development of just war thinking are laid out.  


The first stage that is given is the Christian thinkers Ambrose and Augustine. 


Augustine was a converted to Christianity after encountering Ambrose's preaching, so they are intertwined in their thought. According to the research in these two books, both of these men "instructed Christians to forego self-defense if attacked as a private citizen, for this would be an example of excessive self-love." (emphasis added)


It was Thomas Aquinas who argued that "self preservation is natural, and a private individual may not intend to kill an attacker even though the death of the assailant may result."


For about 800 years of Christian tradition, killing someone in self defense was considered excessive self love.  


If this was the case, why then do we see non-violence (and to a greater extent pacifism) as not real answers to the complex situations we are in?  


Have we fallen into excessive self love?  

Wilco - War on War

While I am not the first to point this out I am sure, the band Wilco has this song called "War on War".  I am not a music buff.  In fact I was recently told that I like music which can easily be substituted for background music for any products that target the 40-60 year old mothers of this country.  

Needless to say I am not hip with the music of today.  When I ran across this song and heard it again for the first time in a long time I could not but hear very strong Christian undertones.  Is Wilco a "Christian" band?  If not, then why cannot more "Christian bands" sound better than the junk I hear on the Christian radio?  (They all sound to me like they are reading a Hallmark card to a 3 year old child who just found out that his puppy died due to heartworms.  Can we drop the airy-ness of Christian vocalists?)  

For those of you who work in a controlled environment (Lockheed) or those who work for a lame boss who will not allow you to play Youtube videos, below this embedded frame you can find the lyrics to Wilco's song. 

Peace.

It's a war on war
It's a war on war
It's a war on war
It's a war on war
It's a war on war
It's a war on warIt's a war on war
There's a war on
You're gonna lose
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die

Let's watch the miles flying by
Let's watch the miles flying by
You are not my typewriter
But you could be my demon
Moving forward through flaming doors
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die
If you wanna be alive

O.k.

You have to lose
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die
If you wanna be alive

You have to die
You have to die
You have to learn how to die
If you wanna be alive