1. those psychological imbalances, which have often associated with spiritual
mispractice (so called), generally require the therapy of prudential norms
not the ministration of theological gnosis (they say to correct exculpable
ignorance 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, to
mathematical set theory) and only reveals which stance corresponds to
which other stance(s); it cannot reveal which stance corresponds to reality
via philosophical method we can measure the epistemic virtue of competing
faith stances but we still can't prove which stance is true
all that said, believers with their manifold faith stances have long
overstated the practical consequences of orthodoxy & heterodoxy vis a vis
their respective stances; thankfully, such wisdom as is enshrined in the free
exercise & nonestablishment clauses of the 1st amendment (and
elsewhere) 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 1st
amendment) that faith stances come closer to being inviolable than moral
stances (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