Main Page Contact Register Log In

If you divide christians into lutherians and catholics if lutherians are found somehow to be bad the issue of whether christians are bad because lutherians are bad doesn't that much rise up or it is moot. You don't need to decide whether lutherians represent christians because you can sort things out without the umbrella term "christians". For example the conflict in Ireland it is prety hard to tell which one is the "real christian faith". We are content with not identifying one or can understand christianity as encompassing both mutually contradictory systems (and even understand that one of the component facets protestantism has its own mutually contradictory facets). Somehow it is harder to concieve that islam might have similar structure.

Like most christians are not lutherans, designating that work-for-its-own-sake (as contrast to reward or result) is a property of the subdivision and not the general class we can expect non-lutheran christians to not exhibit it even if we lack any positive description of what the other subdivisions are like. That is when we say that work-for-its-own-sake might make people do needless busy work and feel good about it, we might want to emphasise that when we are saying these people do a bad thing that we criticise the subgroup and not christianity as a whole (ie christian workethic isn't automatically tainted by critisising lutheran work-ethic). Similarly when we critisise ISIS for things that uniquely the ISIS subgroup does we don't critisise them for being muslims. If you interpret resisting temptation as trying to kill people that do bad things that doesn't mean that resisting temptation is bad as such. But the details on what that means in practise do matter.

Martin Luther found that having a market of "buying your soul" a way into heaven was not properly connected to christian beliefs. Similarly beheading people for the slightest mistake is likely to be a disproportionate punishment in islamistic terms. Thus there is likely to be valid islamistic reasons to critisise ISIS. The question of the validity of the fundamentals doesn't even come up when the connection is at best shaky. There is a difference in the degree of the lenght of the argument chain. While religion might require to take some things on faith, it doesn't require to take everything on faith. That is if you try to use islam to back up some belief there are standards where you can fail to back the claim with it, ie islam has a meaning and you can fail to use its correct meaning. That is, it is possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (atleast most of the time).

To me, the following questions are separate:

1) Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
2) Are ISIS “real” Muslims?

Proving that the answer to the first question is negative does not prove that the answer to the second question is negative. The former seems obvious, while the latter is suspiciously similar to No True Scotsman fallacy.
it is possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy

If so, then could you tell me is Sunni interpretation of Islam is orthodox or heterodox? How about Shia?
Replies (1)