Sin is a totally subjective thing. The persons who try to make sin pay acquire a subjective relationship to reality. They subjectivize that which is supposed to be objective.

Having subjective concerns or describing subjective concerns is not the problem. The problem is "using" subjectivity. This means allowing subjective forces to alter realities or behavior.

Objective reality is extremely important in creating a medium for life. It is like the ocean to a fish. It is the environment which creates and sustains life. To subjectivize it is like destroying the environment.

Say for example a person has a stomach ulcer; so he complains. Someone else says he's just a complainer and making things up. So he dies from the ailment.

Science was created for this reason. People need to know what objective reality is. They conduct tests to find out. The results cannot be defied, if they are correctly determined.

Therefore, objectivity is a social responsibility. People have a right to expect it. No one has a right to impose nonobjectivity onto other persons. If people want to create subjective relationships, they must do so only when willingly accepted, not imposed.

Having said that, it is of course not possible to entirely eliminate subjectivity from anything people do. But what it all adds up to is that the focus of social interactions is supposed to be on the objective realities, unless there is acceptance of subjectivity, which generally consists of personal and private relationships.

In other words, in attempting to base social concerns on objective reality, the subjectivity is supposed to be ignored rather than built up.

Sin, however, causes the opposite to occur. Corrupt persons focus on subjectivity and use it as the basis for everything they do. They do not have enough abstract awareness to know the difference. While some persons are trying to create an objective basis for decision, corrupt persons are imposing subjectivity onto everyone.

This point escapes the awareness of corrupt persons. But corruption is relative, and the abstractions are not very clear in a lot of minds. So I'll try to convert the abstractions into something comprehendible*, which is always problematic.

A very telling point is this: When I (or anyone else) try to raise issues, which are usually on the order of complaints about corruptions, I encounter a strong repelling force from status quo seekers. The bedrock of their position is in subjective concerns, such as whether their sensitivities are offended.

Anyone can say that anything offends their sensitivities. The problem is that nothing offends the sensitivities of corrupt persons more than the most important objective realities of a subject. While it is always desirable to minimize offensiveness, corruptions always have offensiveness inherently in them and cannot be represented properly without offensiveness. What needs to be done to solve most problems is offensive to corrupt persons. So if the offensiveness cannot be ignored, then no problems can be solved.

In other words, the objective reality about corruption is offensive. One cannot relate to corruption properly without being offensive.

Even if offensiveness is extreme and does need to be considered, it is not an excuse for defying the objective realities. Of course, the only reason why corrupt persons harp on their sensitivities is because they use it as the pretext for defying the objective realities. The primary ethic of corruption is that there is no sin but the truth about sin. If the truth is so offensive to the perpetrators, why should the victims have to tolerate the corruption.

A second major point is that corrupt persons state everything in subjective terms which reduce rationality to rubble. Reason cannot be applied to subjectivity.

They don't know any better, because they do not have enough abstract awareness. They assume that their subjective points are as valid as any others.

So I'll try to show the difference between subjectivity which defies rationality and objectivity which promotes rationality.

One easy to understand difference is this. While a rational person is focusing on some objective problem, subjectivizers are focusing on him as a person, which eventually deteriorates into name calling.

But these points rapidly sink into quicksand, because sometimes the person is the significance. It depends upon where the objective significance is supposed to be. It has a lot to do with proper representation and judgment, which are easily overwhelmed by corruption. And the exclusion test defines the validity - is it part of the evidence or an excuse for excluding other points.

So here's another point which attempts to step out of the quicksand. Objectivity depends upon specifics which can be pinned down and analyzed further. Subjectivity consists of vagaries which cannot be identified.

Here's another point. Objectivity includes rationality, where one point is related to another point to develop consistent relationships. Subjectivity allows no relationships between points. Each point is a stand-alone claim, which rests upon the supposed knowledge of the person who makes it, and no test is possible to determine whether it is true or not.

Objectivity requires making only those points for which there is evidence to substantiate them. If there is no evidence, a point should not be made. Subjectivizers never follow that rule. They subconsciously do the opposite in their attempts to evade accountability.

Let's try examples. A subjectivizer would attack a critic as not being respectful. Isn't an accusation of unrespectful also unrespectful? Even though being respectful is relevant, arguing over it is descent into the subjective pit. A more objective basis for claims is needed. There is always something more objective that goes with an unrespectful stance, and rationality requires forcusing on the objective rather than the subjective.

That principle applies to everything, but particularly to judgmental terms, such as being respectful. To use such terms as stand-alone concepts is in effect saying that they are going to be applied unfairly and no one is going to be able to question them.

Here's another very significant point. Once clarifications exist, through explanations or examples, one finds corrupt persons to be defying the requirements more than anyone, even if they are the ones creating the requirements. It is infact this harsh reality that drives them underground causing them to use terms in ways which can never be verified.

We'll state this principle as an easy-to-grasp sound-byte. Call it Harold's sixth principle. Subjectivizers use judgmental terms as stand-alone concepts which cannot be evaluated through evidence but rely solely upon their saying so.

Notice this philosophical point. Once surrounding realities are developed, a point enters the objective medium. Without surrounding realities being developed, a point is subjective. Call it God's first principle. He built an objective universe on that basis.

All and all, it's in the purpose. When the purpose is to replace objectivity with subjectivity in confrontations, rationality is destroyed, and nothing constructive can occur.

---

*I do not accept the major corruptions found in the dictionary, such as putting an s in place of a d in the word comprehendible. It violates all norms. That sort of thing is one of satan's antics for perverting language. It leaves his sent-mark on things, like a skunk sent-marking trees. And it demonstrates the degree of control satan has over things.