If everybody in the world had a mental illness due to something not detectible by microscopes, CAT scans, or anything else that detects physical problems, and that mental illness influenced the thoughts and corresponding lives of those who had it, and one person lacked that illness, that person would be seen as "different" or "abnormal." As far as the majority goes, they think they are "right" because each one of them is "normal." Normality is relative to the majority, not to what should be. And far too often people critisize others for not being "normal," whether the subject of normality be phsycological, physical, or spiritual in nature. Let's deal with the spiritual aspect. Fundamentalists have a view of what is right based on their interpretation of Scripture. So do liberals. Fundamentalists judge liberals and liberals judge fundamentalists. First of all, neither of them has to be right about whatever topic is being discussed. Second of all, there has to be one conclusion to every discussion, whether that conclusion is subjective or objective in nature. How does one know what is the right conclusion? If I could answer that, I could eliminate the terms "fundamentalist" and "liberal." But I'm not going to do that. I do not doubt my fundamental beliefs, for I believe they are sound, but I cannot uplift dogmatism so high that it refuses to accept something else as truth if it is a better fit to reality than what I presently believe. When personal agenda reigns as the king of perceived truth, I no longer seek to find truth, but rather I attempt to make truth and I am unwilling to accept reality when God shows it to me. And this reality shows us intended normality. This normality is what God created, but man lost because of sin. To be driven by dogmatism is to be like the majority with the undetected mental illness. When they see someone who is "healthy," they cannot allow themselves to accept that they are "sick" and are the ones in need of change. Certainly there are diseases that are obviously detrimental to overall health, but what of the one who is merely...different? Cannot something be learned of him? Is the majority supreme, or is truth? Is historical normality the standard, or is truth? Truth is not found in "what always has been" or "what most people in our circles believe." Truth is its own substance and cannot be determined by what people say it is. Truth paints a picture of the immutable God - or should I say, truth is a product of the existence of God. Understanding changes. It always has. God doesn't. Logically we can deduce from these two statements that, historically speaking, 100% truth has not been found by men, nor will it be until we're all dead. Only glorified individuals who have seen God and have cast off the filthy, defiled flesh can truly see 100% truth, for only the glorified individual can see the complete picture of God. And even then we are limited. Who are we, who yet live in the flesh, to claim supreme health and be unwilling to learn from those who are different? Do we have to admit that they are right? Not necessarily. But we must be humble enough to learn, for our understanding about just about everything is still incomplete and always will be until we're dead. But our understanding can progress. This happens by learning, evaluating, discerning, praying, and yielding to the Spirit. No dogmatic (proud) man will know truth according to the Spirit as he ought. No, not much more than an unregenerate man can. I do not mean by this post that man cannot please God because he will never be able to truly see who He really is. God is pleased by one's desires more than He is by one's accomplishments. Accomplishments are done by the unregenerate everyday. But they are filthy rags. Rather, God looks on the heart. What we give Him today from our hearts pleases Him. This is yielding. This is relationship. Women and men don't understand each other very well. But a love and desire for the other (all things pending) will keep them together. Understanding within this bond will keep growing. But little or much understanding does not have to regulate little or much love. We can have a vibrant relationship with God, even though we don't really get everything about Him. So let's seek the love relationship. Understanding will come when the Spirit shows us. We must be willing to accept it when it comes though, whatever twists it may throw in our preconceived ideas. Our goal is truth as it displays God, because we love Him and want to know Him and understand Him. Love is curious about the deep things of the other. Should we not seek the deep things of God, while not making conceptual endeavors god instead?