I think I will toss in here...because Don's point about "the teachings of Jesus" gives me an opening, the point that many philosophers, most notably Kant, argued that doing good and moral principles did not require religious prophets to explain it, to lead them by the nose, or to threaten them with eternal punishment in order to establish sane, reasonable behavior.

from that link.."Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the "Categorical Imperative" (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle) and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency."

Now, obviously, the details of Kant's arguments are beyond many of the folks who need guidance, but IF those who can see the point were to work to make it available in non-philosophical language, we might get by with a LOT less confusing disputes about interpretation of various religious moral Gerrymandering. Ideally, at least for me, preachers would be telling their congregations that Jesus exemplified really good logic & reason.