Jeff is a good guy to talk with, Rob. 
I’m not such a good guy to talk with. But like Jeff (more or less) for me it comes down to what I believe fits the most evidence most validly. I don’t recommend anyone believe Christianity unless they come to see it is true, and I don’t recommend anyone believe some variation of Christianity unless they come to see it is true. It’s better to be agnostic about these things if one cannot figure out between options (although I do recommend a positive agnosticism that looks for appreciation in various beliefs and would go with a belief if perceived to be true, rather than a negative agnosticism that actively denies truth claims), and I’d even say it’s better to believe some other religion or to be an atheist (of one or another variety) insofar as someone can see that it is true!
(I see Pilgrim advised much the same thing while I was composing. I’m glad we can agree on some things occasionally. )
Now, having said that: I know from your other posts that it isn’t only “Christianity” that piles on the guilt and self-hate: you already have that anyway, and you’re looking for some way out of it. You do things you yourself believe to be wrong, and you can’t seem to stop doing them.
I assume you aren’t satisfied with logics of absolute moral relativism (and also not with logics of atheism), or you’d stick with an amoral variety of atheism (or a moral variety of it), or an amoral pantheism, or maybe even deism (a supernaturalistic theism where God has little to no interest in human nature so to speak, aside from designing us in some way to some extent, and so also isn’t interested in our morality or lack thereof).
But there must be something about Christianity per se that attracts you, or you’d stay with another kind of moral theism.
Based on your past posts, you seem to understand that Christianity talks about a God Who is willing to go the farthest extreme in sympathizing with sinners while still being moral Himself: the Christian “grace” is just deeper than the grace offered by any other idea of God on the market. Because there just isn’t any other idea on the market where God Most High Himself sacrifices Himself (and no one less or other than Himself) to save His own enemies.
But then comes the other logical consequence: God couldn’t be moral Himself and not expect you to grow to become moral, too. He can and will heal everything that needs healing sooner or later (often post-mortem), and won’t hold that against you. And relatedly, He’ll excuse everything that can be excused, and won’t hold those against you. Because He is good and just and moral and loving, and those are obviously loving and just (fair) things to do.
And He’ll forgive what you do wrong; and you don’t have to earn His forgiveness; and you don’t have to get someone else to earn God’s forgiveness for you.
But you do have to cooperate with His forgiveness, for His forgiveness to be fulfilled, because forgiveness isn’t the same as simply excusing you where you couldn’t help doing things. Forgiveness needs repentance, not for forgiveness to be offered, but to be fulfilled. Forgiveness is the reconciliation of an intentionally broken personal relationship: the one sinned against can reach out in forgiveness forever and ever and ever, to the one who has abused the victim of sin the most (the one the farthest away from the victim of sin), but for the reconciliation to even start being completed the sinner has to reach back away from the sin to the one who was sinned against.
By which I mean you have the analogy backward: if any moral theism is true, but especially if orthodox Christianity is true, then God, as well as other people, is the victim of our sins. We’re the ones abusing the grace of our spouse and then showing back up every once in a while with the stained undershirt at the foot of the cross, or at the door of the tomb if you prefer, promising this time it won’t happen again.
The difference of course is that God, unlike other victims of our sins whom we abuse by our sins, isn’t less powerful than we are. And if that’s scary, then we should damned well be scared! Being sacred of having abused someone vastly more powerful than we are is better than imagining ourselves to be the abused victim when He insists we stop our abuse of Himself and of other people.
(I do have some sympathy with the abused victim analogy when it comes to us being kicked around by Nature and morally abused by other people under God’s authoritative allowance for them to do so. But then, He allows us to do that to other people, too, insofar as we can. I have less than no sympathy with the abused victim analogy when the topic is our sins, unless we’re talking about other people, up to and including God Most High, being abused by us.)
God is pleased with us even when we stumble and totter, so long as we’re stumbling and tottering and crawling toward the light (instead of toward the darkness) so to speak: we don’t have to earn the light, and the light comes to us to empower us and show us the way to go.
But neither will God be satisfied (as MacDonald puts it) until we have a fully healthy walk and run. Because He loves us. (I expect He’ll only be satisfied in fact so long as we continue to grow ever stronger in our walking and running and flying, because He loves us.)
That’s difficult, and moreso for some people than for others, usually due to factors beyond our control–which God takes into account. As MacD’s disciple Lewis used to say, God doesn’t judge us as though we have no difficulties.
If your problem is that it’s difficult, I can sympathize with that–even though I cannot sympathize with the notion that because God insists we stop abusing Him and other people, and will never stop insisting, and will sooner or later upgrade His insistences in various ways increasingly inconvenient to us, therefore we’re the ones being abused by God.
But difficult isn’t hopeless. God offers us what may be compared to an operation and post-op physical therapy–in fact He insists on leading us to the operation (which NT authors compare to circumcision of the heart!–not an analogy to take lightly!) and then insists on the post-op physical therapy. He graciously provides all that for us, and graciously continues to lead us to it even when we haven’t accepted it yet, or even when we’ve accepted it and yet still sporadically reject it.
The real bother comes when He graciously keeps on persisting at us being healthy, though; including that we should do our exercises to grow stronger and more coordinated (by physical analogy). Anyone who has had the good fortune (not me, fortunately! 
) of going through post-op physical therapy should have a good idea of what I mean when I say it’s a real bother!
It could seem completely oppressive if someone kept insisting on it instead of finally leaving us alone to be weak and crippled and unhealthy forever and being content to love us only as we are–also thereby being content with only being the continual victim of our sin–instead of loving us enough to insist on our becoming better than we currently are.
But (as Lewis used to say, definitely following MacD on this) then we’re asking for less love, not for more love from God.
Anyway, here’s the thing. I can sympathize with growing more moral and more successively moral being difficult. It’s difficult for everyone to some extent: even saintly people, in this life, tend to be very self-critical about remaining ethical problems in their lives, which we would disregard as being too small to even matter. That’s because they have grown to care so much about other people (both God and man) that they don’t want to be even a little unjust or unloving toward them.
But what’s more important (and I mean more objectively, logically important, not merely more important to me personally, although that, too) is whether a worldview is true, not whether it happens to be convenient or inconvenient to me. Whatever reality really is, is going to keep affecting me in various ways so long as ‘I’ exist, whether I agree with whatever reality really is or not.
If reality turns out to be utterly gracious to me, despite my ethical failures (and even despite any insistences of mine on ethically failing), great!–that’s amazingly good news! And also it happens to be very convenient to me!
If being utterly gracious to me turns out to involve hounding me to also become gracious and righteous myself, and never resting content with me remaining even a little unjust and unloving–great!–that’s also amazingly good news! Especially considering this means I’ve been abusing the grace of reality! Even though it may be very inconvenient to me currently, to stop abusing reality.
God isn’t going to give up on getting the thorn out of me, and on getting me out of the thorns. Even if I currently feel safer in the middle of the thorns (even if in some ways I currently am safer in the middle of the thorns), and even if pulling a thorn out of me hurts a lot more immediately than leaving it in. But He sure isn’t going to give up on getting me to stop going out to war against Him with thorns and thistles, and stabbing Him with them, and cramming them on His head.
But not even counting the actual thrust of our injustice against other people (up to and including against God): I know it hurts terribly to be woken from nearly freezing to death, no matter how gently the savior works. It’s a lot more comfortable to curl up (apparently) warmly–and just freeze to death.
But then I would be asking for less love from the savior, not for more.
and so in some (probably vague and very woolly non-true-christian) way I no longer ‘try’ periodically to ‘be a christian’ my approach is one of sceptical doubt - but if any deity IS in charge I trust it’s the God of the Universalists (Biblically I think they are right moreso than other views) - a kind of diluted Pascal’s Wager if you will.