Axiom 1: morality is founded on the effort to achieve a maximally fit balance between freedom of individual action and the objective metrics of impact in terms of the life and health of others.
Definition 1: salvation, as defined by (most) of global Christianity is predicated upon faith that Jesus was the Messiah and honest repentance of sin.
Premise 1: a system of morality is grounded if and only of it is maximally universaliazeable
Premise 2: the maximally fit universaliazeable morality is one built on a system of reciprocity predicted on restitution rather than punishment.
Premise 3: reciprocity requires that personally caused harms are personally made right.
Premise. 4: abrogation of P3 is, therefore, a willful abdication of morality and is therefore immoral
Premise 5: urging others to violate P3 therefore subverts morality into immorality
Premise 6: Christian morality, as per Definition 1, urges the violation of P3
∴Christian morality subverts morality into immorality.
You will notice that my proof is a sound deductive proof. And since a sound deductive proof is Truth Preserving, your arguments are irrelevant unless and until you can falsify my proof. That’s the advantage to proper epistemology – no matter if it’s Christians, Scientologists, or the adherents of Voodoo… I don’t even need to know the words that they use to cloak their errors. And they must be errors, by logical necessity, if they cannot falsify my proof.
P.S, no “but you don’t believe in God therefor I win” is not a sound argument about morality. No, seriously, it isn’t.