I have no such reason of course, but perhaps someone can give their best one? So we can examine the rationale.
“Well the strongest argument often cited against moral objectivism is the argument from cultural relativism, which points to the vast and persistent differences in moral values across cultures and historical periods, suggesting that if morality were truly objective, there wouldn’t be such significant variations in what people consider right and wrong.”
I don’t accept the existence of supernatural curses, as they’re unsupported by objective evidence. I also find the idea that a newborn baby starts it life cursed, and requires saving, to be morally repugnant.
It has the same problem all the others have, the promise is meaningless until or unless the claim that we need saving, is supported by sufficient objective evidence.
Since the gospel myths are anonymous hearsay, written decades after the events they purport to describe, and involve claims at their core for a supernatural deity, we have no objective evidence exist or is possible, why would I care what others subjectively choose to assign a character in those myths?
He can’t send me there if it and he don’t exist.