[brundolf]

I was in the exact same place as you about 10 years ago.

A key thing for me (I'm still not religious, though I'm religion-adjacent in some ways) was seeing that religion - despite what some would tell you - is at its best when it's not made to be about material truths at all. Its truths, really, are truths about the human condition and how best to live it out.

In this sense, even as someone who doesn't believe in metaphysical spirits, the heart of what they're claiming (if you really dig down deep past many of the surface-level particulars) contains a lot of truth.

[lalaland1125]

The problem is that their teachings also contain a lot of falsehoods. For example, the majority of churches in the US teach that gay sex will cause a person to be tortured for eternity in hell.

That teaching is probably wrong and causes so much damage to so many people.

[geedy]

Religions house many people fearful of what is happening in their lives, the lives of their loved ones. They want explanations for why their expectations and needs are not met. Is it surprising that the powerful would leverage that fear?

Funny how the Hebrew and Greek words for fear have so many other meanings, and yet the church has taught but one for so long when considering the "fear of God".

Seems to contradict "perfect love casts out all fear". Perhaps we would all be better off if we understood "wisdom begins with the awe of God" as the preferred intention.

Because fear based things really suck.

[QuarterReptile]

I admit that I have only participated in a minority of all the churches in the US, but I have never attended any church where your statement would be consistent with doctrine on hell, sin, or homosexuality.

[lalaland1125]

I guess you never attended the Catholic Church? They are quite explicit that gay sex is a grave sin.

[QuarterReptile]

Viewing pornography is equally as likely to be grave sin (I say equally likely because the act is a necessary but not sufficient condition for meeting the definition of mortal sin). I don't mean to downplay that pornography is a negative influence, but you misunderstand mortal sin [1]. Paragraphs 1854 -1864 are particularly relevant.

Mortal/grave sins must be confessed per catholic doctrine, but to say that the mere acts were final is to misunderstand the whole concept of the new covenant.

[1] https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s...

[lalaland1125]

> Mortal/grave sins must be confessed per catholic doctrine

Can you truly perform confession for a sin that you are unrepentant about? Like if someone is continuously having gay sex with no regrets or desire to change can they really "confess" about that? Don't you need to at least "admit" that you have sinned in order to confess?

I agree with you that a couple of instances of gay sex doesn't send a person to hell, but a lifestyle where you accept gay sex as a fundamental part of yourself that you don't even try to change does send you hell if I understand the doctrine correctly.

[QuarterReptile]

I agree that that wouldn't do as a confession. I believe that would be considered an invalid confession, just like withholding grave sins that you didn't want to talk about.

My disagreement is in the idea of permanently accepting a lifestyle oriented around gay sex while also trying to remain a Christian. That lifestyle is clearly contrary to the church teachings, so maintaining such a stance over a lifetime requires spiritual stagnation such that you don't have to face the dissonance involved. That assumes a foundation of belief; without belief, church is like any other social function; with it, the idea of rejecting teachings shouldn't seem like a viable path. There are plenty of churches where such dissonance is the norm and a welcome contributor to doctrine, but if you aren't taking the teachings as foundational, then you're sort of just using Jesus as a figurehead of a pretty nice guy, which the Catholic church reliably objects to.

Having said all that, there are plenty of problems with implementation. I don't think you'd have to look far to find a Catholic church where many or most people agree to quietly disagree about contraception.They shouldn't be allowed to do so,but it's a much easier thing to hide. And you could argue that it's a much less visible, and thus less subversive, transgression (not clear that that's true.)

In both of those cases, though, the last thing the church should be doing is casting believers out. If they do that, they're abdicating their very clear responsibility to help those people. Whether you agree with those changes being "help", from the perspective of doctrinally sound preachers/congregants/parishes, directing others to lives ordered toward church teachings is the most important and morally obligatory thing.