Some of the, what I consider of course, philosophy and logic found within religion:

Oaths

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you can not make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV

We can’t even change a speck of our hair from black to white (our hair turning from a dark shade, to white ultimately); anything more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ we’ve ever said regarding the influence of the idea of a Heaven—God(s) or an Afterlife, and the influence of an Earth—humans, our peers, contemporaries, family, friends, and the wieght their influence has upon us (hence racism), only comes from a worry, a need, desire, or fear for ourselves: a selfishness; it would only be “blind men leading other blind men.” This would, of course, include questions like: “what does this God(s) or Afterlife truly consist of, and what does it mean for me, and/or my contemporaries?” Or: “what is absolutely true?” The peace we find in taking oaths to the man made answers we find to these questions only comes from evil: a worry, need, fear or desire for ourselves—a selfishness. I believe in an unimaginable God(s) or creator(s) of some kind, just for context, but I agree with Jesus that anything more then this would only come from selfishness in some way. I rest my head on the precepts of Leo Tolstoy’s completely objective interpretation of The Sermon On The Mount (linked above, chapters 5-7), and it alone in becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

Oath-taking—considering things as infallibly or as unquestionably true; “the absolute truth”—leads us into things like racism, slander, misinformation, hate between one portion of people and another, war between nations, not being united in selflessness—divided 40k different ways in its regard, not to mention all the other man made things being held as unquestionably true; potentially defiling ones mind into thinking just about anything, like Paul, convinced persecuting early followers of Jesus’ teaching was right, true and just beyond any shadow of a doubt—due to the oaths he’s taken, both either figuratively and literally to either himself, or anything else; throwing the supposed Messiah (not to mention anyone at all in the first place) up on a cross; to be convinced what the Pharisees have to say is as true as what the Pastors or Fathers of today have to say, especially regarding the influences of the idea of a Heaven—a God and an Afterlife.

The third maxim inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: “Give a pledge and trouble is at hand.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims

Oath-taking, so to speak, only holds the potential to divide us—in fact, it’s exactly this that invites heresy into the world at all in the first place—(40k different ways, apparently, yes there’s roughly that many sects of Christianity) and even leads us into iniquity to any degree; iniquity defined by the precept captioned The Golden Rule and even described as “the Law and the Prophets” that were meant to be fulfilled: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matt 7:12

We can’t even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why even bother only setting the stage for the evil of either today or tomorrow to take advantage of those influences? And only stigmatize our capacity for selflessness not only individually, but especially collectively as a species by claiming our or anyones more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ regarding those influences is absolutely true beyond any doubt; when the question comes from evil and is an irrelevance to begin with, and only the substance of our more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ really matters, ultimately, which can be sumed up simply as: selflessness, to even and especially, the most extreme degrees. Why bother taking an oath in any way regarding the influences stated? Considering the extent we can’t even guarantee anything in life; what is it that causes this principle to fall short when considering what exactly the idea of an Afterlife consists of? And a God(s) or creator(s) of some kind? We can’t even change a speck of our hair from black to white, so why bother taking oaths to things completely beyond our ability and comprehension? Like toiling over trying to guarantee exactly what our future will be or what exactly an Afterlife, God(s) or creator(s) of some kind consists of? Wouldn’t the substance then therefore of something we can absolutely comprehend: love (selflessness), and our ability to reason and logic that serves as its basis, be significantly more important then anymore then our yes’s and no’s regarding the influences of a Heaven (God and an Afterlife) and an Earth (our contemporaries) that have only proven to divide us more then unify? To hate and kill each other over even.

It’s the opposite of oath-taking, and a close mind that’s lead to Christianity at all in the first place; how ironic the extent it presently advocates the very kind of oaths and close-minded state of mind that would’ve lead to it never being considered to begin with, and Jesus himself not being able to see past the fear for himself that was inculcated into him by the dogma of his day, to see past what was presently being held as infallible, to find the truth that’s been smothered by it, becoming yet another Pharisee himself otherwise. Jesus, with an open mind, and seeing the dogma of the day as questionably true, opposed to unquestionably true—like how most sects of Christianity consider their interpretations presently—like the Pharisees would and even teach others to do the same, was able to find the truth that wasn’t The Nicene Creed (in my opinion, obviously), but our capacity for love as a species, and the knowledge of the relevance and potential of returning any degree of it, for evil done; to potentially reach a day where violence, at the very least, is considered a laughable part of our past like the idea of a King is to us now, or not being able to fly around in airplanes; to potentially even cure the world of at the very least the majority of hate, evil, and division within it, but especially to lead us away from this life of hell we ultimately dig for ourselves when we—out of instinct and taking oaths—build our house (our life) on the sand, and make life about squeezing out as much as possible from it for the sake of oneself (selfishness), like most people; and to instead take the path that’s more difficult, and inherently less attractive: a life of selflessness, and build your house (your life) up on the rock, becoming a son or daughter of “our Father” yourself; a “Son of Man.” People like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi. Men that gave up their personal welfare and a life of themselves to toil, suffer and even give their lives for teaching and exemplifying—influencing men to be good for any reason (peacemaking), leading them out of iniquity, selfishness and this hell on Earth we’re inherently drawn to, being mammals and abscent this knowledge; their names given new life after death, via our unique ability to transfer knowledge, living on for eternity or at least for a time, inspiring men out of a life of iniquity, ultimately becoming a prisoner to their mind, or to men otherwise.

The Golden Rule

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” - Matt 7:13