those psychological imbalances, which have often associated with spiritualmispractice (so called), generally require the therapy of prudential normsnot the ministration of theological gnosis (they say to correct exculpableignorance or culpable heresy)

even at that, heresy hunting does not engage theological method per se;rather, it's essentially an exercise in semantics (more akin, really, tomathematical set theory) and only reveals which stance corresponds towhich other stance(s); it cannot reveal which stance corresponds to reality

via philosophical method we can measure the epistemic virtue of competingfaith stances but we still can't prove which stance is true

all that said, believers with their manifold faith stances have longoverstated the practical consequences of orthodoxy & heterodoxy vis a vistheir respective stances; thankfully, such wisdom as is enshrined in the freeexercise & nonestablishment clauses of the 1st amendment (andelsewhere) knows better (such that, for example, in tony demello's words,we should just leave other people alone!)

it makes sense, then (when it comes to religious liberty vis a vis the 1stamendment) that faith stances come closer to being inviolable than moralstances (the latter being transparent to human reason)

i'm thus more interested in moral and political stances and, where faith

stances are concerned, more so in which are virtuous, less so in which are

heterodox

1