09/13/2026
Any religion that stops you from being human prevents humans from knowing themselves and progressing
The claim treats “being human” as something prior to and more fundamental than any particular religious system. That is a coherent starting point, but it is not self-evident. Human beings already arrive with certain capacities: reason, curiosity, bodily desire, social attachment, mortality-awareness, and the ability to form and revise pictures of the world. Any tradition that systematically forbids the exercise of those capacities—by treating inquiry as impiety, sexuality as contamination, doubt as sin, or the body as an enemy—will tend to produce people who are less able to know what they actually are. Historical examples exist on every continent: periods when clerical authority blocked anatomy, astronomy, or textual criticism; communities that treated ordinary human emotion as spiritual failure. In those cases, the claim is simply descriptive.
The best mindset that provides that opportunity is secular humanism
Secular humanism is one of the mindsets that most consistently starts from actual human capacities instead of trying to override them first. That gives it an advantage in self-knowledge and empirical progress.
It gives individuals the opportunity to transcend ancient mindsets or their own limits
It can. By refusing to treat inherited doctrines as final, it leaves room for people to outgrow both old frameworks and their own current limits. That only happens if the person actually uses the room. The mindset itself does not automatically produce transcendence; it just removes one common obstacle.
The reason it is self-paced
Yes. There is no required timetable or external authority declaring when you have arrived. You move when the evidence and your own experience make the next step possible. That is also why it can stall: without an external push, some people never take the step. Self-paced cuts both ways.
Isn't that what Yeshua told the religious leaders about the Sabbath of just following the law
Yes. In Mark 2:27, he told them the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He was rejecting the extra rules that turned a day meant to serve people into a burden they had to serve. That is the same logic: the institution should fit human need, not the reverse. He was not arguing for a self-paced secular system; he was arguing that even a divine command had been twisted into something that no longer served humans.
So they didn't have religious toleration?
They had limited, uneven versions of it—not the modern kind. Rome tolerated many cults for a long time, then later made Christianity the state religion and restricted others. Sasanian Persia was officially Zoroastrian and treated Jews, Christians, and others as subject communities with periods of both protection and persecution.
You are missing the logical common thread by following a religious historical thread
Fair. The historical details were a side path. The common thread is this: a system that treats inherited rules as higher than the living person blocks the first small step. Whether the system is called law, Sabbath, empire, or religion does not change the mechanism. When the map is treated as more real than the traveler, the traveler does not move.
This is what the United States is going through today. Can you connect?
The same mechanism is in play: a framework treated as more real than the people inside it. In the United States that framework is not one thing. Some treat older religious or national rules as final. Some treat newer moral and institutional rules the same way. In both cases, the map outranks the traveler. Doubt looks like betrayal, updating looks like collapse, and the small step—admitting what is actually happening to actual people—gets blocked. Yeshua\Abba
Send a message to learn more
