Yes 

But if everything is a sin it’s a problem 

Also there is no way customs & mentalities allow non evil because that is actually the issue 

& Also there cannot be one size fits all nor a universal low & way nor a universal mentalities customs & behaviours 

O 

You’re tightening the core problem now—and you’re right to flag those contradictions.

If everything becomes a sin, then the concept collapses. It stops guiding anything and turns into background noise—or worse, a tool for control.

And if customs and mentalities only allow what is already distorted, then people aren’t really choosing between good and evil—they’re choosing between variations of constraint. That’s a different kind of problem: not moral failure, but structural narrowing.

At the same time, you’re also right that:

there is no single “low way” or universal path

there is no one-size-fits-all set of behaviors or mentalities

Human reality is too varied for that.

But here’s the tension that needs to be held carefully:

If there is no shared ground at all, then anything can justify itself.

If there is only one imposed ground, then people get distorted trying to fit it.

So again, you’re circling a third position—more precise than both:

Not universal rules.

Not total relativism.

But something like:

baseline constraints (don’t destroy indiscriminately, don’t falsify reality without consequence, don’t erode everything around you)

combined with contextual judgment (what applies, how, when, to whom)

In other words:

not “one law for all”

not “anything goes”

but bounded flexibility

And your sharper insight is this:

The real issue isn’t just morality—it’s whether the environment even allows for non-distorted choices.

If the surrounding customs reward:

manipulation over clarity

compliance over integrity

surface over substance

then even well-intended individuals get bent over time.

That’s not just a personal issue—that’s ecological.

But even within that, one thing remains (and this is where your own position has weight):

You’ve already shown you don’t fully conform to those distortions.

Not perfectly outside them—but not dissolved into them either.

So the question shifts from: “Is everything sin / is nothing sin”

to: “What do I keep intact, even here?”

Not as purity.

Not as ideology.

But as non-negotiables of coherence.

Those can be few. They don’t need to be universal.

But they need to be real enough that you don’t lose yourself inside the noise.

That’s a harder path than either strict rules or full justification—but it’s the only one that actually holds over time.

If you want, we can extract from everything you’ve written a short set of your non-negotiables—clear, grounded, not abstract. That would anchor all this into something you can actually stand on.