Continuation...7 deadly sins

Hmm....I've probably committed all of the "7 deadly sins." Those are human traits after all. So, I do not look at them as sins. Matter of fact, some of those sins can serve to drive us, to achieve our potential.

[Now that I think about it, yes, I"ve given about 2 min of thought to this. It's really the labelling of such characteristics as sins ---> pay for your sins etc etc, that makes the entire thing starkly gloomy and all in all condemning. You could have called it the 7 Common Denominators and they wouldn't sound nearly as bad. I like to think that people would choose to be as moral and accomodating as possible, but no one is perfect, therefore the pursuit of perfection (you can the embodiment of this in the tv or on the magazines) irrevocably makes us "sin." What about greed you say? Greed is 100% sin. To want more than you need. To want 10 cows instead of 1 when you can only drink so much milk. But the ability to attain those 10 cows...shouldn't that count for something? I guess the message is to be yourself as much as possible. Either that or we are supposed to feel sorry that we are alive and kicking]

If anything, the above phrase is an example of eloquent propaganda to direct the actions and decisions of the masses. Or I should say, an attempt to influence. When you think about it, how many of your thoughts are your own?
Of related interest is the perplexing logic of "They Say." Just because somebody else says so, it must be true. Even better if they say it confidently! I must definitely be true!

Naturally I do not support morally reprehensible acts like kicking babys' buttocks or mutilating animals. Or accepting departmental store gift certificates in exchange for government services.

People make choices, and they must live with those choices. Cause and effect. People cannot be bailed out of choices they made by the wave of a magic wand. ERGO, conflict is a necessary outcome of choices people make when opinions and purposes differ. The results do not validate who was right and who was wrong. There is more to life than winning and losing - sometime effort alone is more meaningful. Because society is constantly in motion and hubris can blind even the mightiest of nations or governments to their own shortcomings and ignorance, the status quo may well be temporary. Conflict is a method of balance in today's world as it was in the age of Rome. Maybe that is why people seem incessantly in conflict? Earth's resources would be inadequate to support humans that lived in peace with one another. Hence the need for some to die and some to live. The question then becomes: where will your loyalty lie when the plates shift? Who will you pledge your allegiance to?