I want to begin by stating clearly that my intention is not to speak with malice or to blindly criticize any faith. I believe that true understanding comes when we are brave enough to look at history and scripture through the lens of logic and human dignity. My goal is to seek a path that offers hope and a future for all people, rather than one that keeps us trapped in the contradictions of the past.
When we look at certain historical texts, we encounter narratives that focus heavily on tribalism and physical reward. For example, the Quran in Surah At-Tawbah 9:29 commands followers to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah… until they pay the tax (Jizya) and feel themselves subdued.” Additionally, the Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 1, Book 5, Hadith 268) details the Prophet’s physical intimacy with eleven wives in one night, claiming he had the “strength of thirty men.” For a modern mind seeking spiritual growth, these details create a massive contradiction. If a message is meant to be divine, we must ask if it should focus on the physical prowess of one man or on the moral elevation of all humanity.
Furthermore, we must consider the “Natural Law” that even the simplest of societies—and even nature itself—understands. In nature, even a chimpanzee or a dog has a biological instinct to protect its young from premature contact. Similarly, in many traditional African cultures, there was an inherent wisdom to protect the vulnerable. Even in societies where early marriages were historically practiced, they were not “logical nonsense”; they required rites of passage and physical growth to ensure the person was ready. When a religious narrative like Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 7, Book 62, Hadith 64) explicitly states that the Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, it creates a logical “short circuit” that goes against the natural protection found even in the animal kingdom.
This brings us to the importance of the “New Agreement.” In the past, we saw many religious systems that were tribal and partial, creating laws that separated people. However, the transition we see through the New Testament suggests a God who stepped away from those physical barriers. As promised in Jeremiah 31:31, “I will make a new covenant… I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” This was fulfilled through the spirit of Christ, who broke tribal walls. In Galatians 3:28, the scripture declares: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This God became a God for everyone, replacing strict, physical rituals with a universal law of love.
Even if one views these matters through a purely secular lens, the “Moral Utility” of a message centered on grace is undeniable. A system that teaches us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31) is logically sustainable and leads to a functional, peaceful society. In contrast, a system that uses ancient texts to justify “subduing” others or “blowing up people” for rewards is a system designed for eternal conflict. As an observer of the world, it is only logical to align with the framework that treats every human being as a person of equal dignity, regardless of their background.
In conclusion, my support for those who represent survival and modern logic, such as the people of Israel, is rooted in this desire for a “morally upright” world. I believe we must move past religious nonsense that fuels radicalization and instead embrace a faith—or a philosophy—that is compatible with science, human rights, and the “New Agreement” of love. We should seek a God who acts as a Father to all, ensuring that our “circuits” are wired for connection rather than destruction.
Ultimately, the choice is between a “Tribal General” and a “Universal Father.” Logic tells us that any God who is truly God must be a God of all races and a God of reason. When we see a “mass contradiction” in a book—where a 50-year-old man marries a child—it is our duty as thinking human beings to choose the path of light, hygiene, and logic. By holding onto the “New Agreement,” we ensure that we are building a future based on character rather than conquest.
In the end, I ask you this: If our own natural conscience and the ‘New Agreement’ of love teach us to protect the innocent and treat all people as equals, why should we cling to an ideology of tribal war and contradictions? Do we want a God who acts as a General ordering us to subdue others, or a Universal Father who calls us to love our neighbor? As we look at the world today, which of these paths actually offers our children a future, and which one is simply wired for destruction?"
