Yeah, I don't think that anthropocentrism comes off as intuitive, let alone as "beautiful" in light of our updated cosmology. It seems rather like grotesque, anachronistic vanity to suppose, again, that the maker of billions of galaxies, which is to say of trillions of full-fledged alien places would be preoccupied with human beings or with our sex lives. The vastly simpler explanation is that that image of God was supplied by the self-centered hopes of ancient patriarchal writers and by our understandable unwillingness to come to grips with the absurdity of our existential situation in the natural universe.
I understand the distinction between an explicit punishment and letting folks have their way, including the negative effects of their actions. But this is just a quibble since it doesn't negate the point I was making. Paul implies in Romans 1 that homosexual sex is a bad thing. He implies homosexuality is the result of the sin of blindness to God's sovereignty or to the arrogance of substituting created things for the creator.
This is consistent with 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which says homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of God. So do you see why this quibble comes across as gaslighting?
You seem to be suggesting that Paul doesn't teach divine condemnation of sin. It goes without saying that, according to Christians, God would forgive the sins of those who believe in Jesus. But 1 Cor.11:31-32 speaks of God's judgment and condemnation with the world. Then there's Rom.2:5-6, which talks about the day of wrath when God's judgment will be revealed.
Not only that, but Paul is at least as fatalistic as Augustine, as in Rom.9:19-23, which says God makes some for destruction and others for glory. Those who are saved are supposed to praise God all the more, knowing that God bore with such patience the sins of those who were (monstrously) created for destruction. None of that's sustainable as soon as you start to think about it (unless you realize that Paul was a proto-Gnostic writer).
It all depends on what Paul says in Romans 1, that sinners are without excuse since God's existence and majesty are obvious to all. What if that obviousness is no longer so after the Scientific Revolution which would have blown Paul's mind clear out of his noggin?
I agree, though, that white American Evangelical bigotry isn't the way of the Jesus character that's presented in the gospels. You can tell me why you're a Christian if you like. Perhaps we can have a thought-provoking debate. I like to post such exchanges on Medium.