Criticism is objective, and it attempts to solve a problem that already exists. Accusing is subjective, and it creates a problem that did not exist.

A process of reason is one of the differences. It shows the evidence in an objective manner. And it is the most basic human responsibility.

Satan is called the accuser. His standard should say something about the morality of accusing. Yet accusing is how some persons supposedly criticize.

Since criticism and accusing are universes apart, and some persons do not know the difference, some clarifying is needed.

Reason can be defined as the process of making relationships between realities. It absolutely requires that the realities of concern be identified and clarified. Otherwise, real relationships are not being made.

Therefore, there has to be specifics with criticism. The specifics need to show what a person said or did and how it relates to other specific realities.

Corrupters do the opposite. They omit specifics with their supposed criticism. They make an opinionated statement, and it hangs in the air, as if their authority alone were supposed to make it fact. Then they make a mockery of reality, which is supposed to be fact because they say so.

That standard applied to personal concerns is the essence of accusing. It is always a corruption because of the standard and the purpose. Naturally, it takes a corrupted standard to promote a corrupted purpose.

Some very telling points about accusing are these: One, it is personalized and therefore impossible to prove. Two, being personalized, it would not be anyone's business if it were true.

It is precisely for these reasons that accusers accuse. They slide into an area where no facts can be established, because they cannot succeed in a justifiable manner. And they want to be as insulting as they can by getting personal and subjective.

This result occurs habitually when corrupted persons are criticized. Truth is insulting to them. So they assume that they should insult the persons who criticize them, as if there were no difference between valid criticisms and insulting mockeries.

I'll explain the difference again. When someone creates a problem through lies or sin, criticism is needed to cope with the problem. The criticism is supposed to be objective showing the conflicts with related realities.

If the perpetrators are insulted by the truth, they insult themselves when they sin. The truth cannot be concealed and the sin protected to prevent the perpetrators from being insulted.

When the perpetrators insult their critics with personal and unverifiable accusations, they are assuming in their own mind that they are justified in throwing insults back to the source. The implications which they cannot comprehend are that there is no sin but the truth about sin, that lies are as valid as truth and that accusing is the same as criticizing.

To equate accusing with criticizing is to respond only to forces without comprehending the realties involved.