I was actually agreeing with you, and simply coming up with another way of explaining judgment that might have simplified things.

Anyway, "protect everybody" is a bit of a flawed statement. God sure isn't gonna protect a serial killer when the police are catching him (unless He has a greater purpose for doing so).

It is true, however, that God looks out for His people. Believers are not guaranteed easy or safe lives on Earth (some have even been persecuted), but they are guaranteed heaven. In addition to this, life is much better when in a right relationship with God.

This is really weird.

Also I think not accepting homosexuality, even if you accept homosexuals, is perfectly judgmental. How do you get around "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in that regard?

A staunch Democrat and staunch Republican will usually accept each other as people, but they will not agree with each other's views.

If a Democrat accepts a Republican as a person and even as a friend, is he accepting the Republican's ideas? No, he still contests them.

If a Republican accepts a Democrat as a person and even as a friend, is he accepting the Democrat's ideas? No, he still contests them.

Ideally, both of the two are mature enough to debate without wrecking their friendship. (I myself lean towards the right, but I disagree with the right on some points- but that's a topic for another time.) They accept each other as fellow humans, though they don't agree. Is either one of them judgmental?

In the same way, a Christian can accept a homosexual as a person, without accepting their views. But often homosexual-rights supporters "demand" we accept their views. To demand we accept one's views would be like the Republican or Democrat trying to pass a law banning people of the other party from entering politics.

Hypothetically speaking (as in, don't flame me), if anyone believed that America should, say, change its flag to the cover of Care Bears, it would be right not to accept this view, as this quite simply defies common sense. It would be perfectly fine to logically and gently explain to the guy why this was a bad idea, why the current flag is good, why changing the flag would show a lack of respect for the country's veterans, and why the Care Bears cover would be ridiculed among other nations. It would not be right to deny the guy food, beat the living daylights out of him, or try to make him feel like he's a worthless piece of garbage, because he thought this- what would Jesus "love-thy-enemy" Christ say about that?

In the same way, Christians are right to logically and gently explain where the homosexual goes wrong, and not accept their view. This is commonplace in most every professional debate. If this is "judgmental" to you, you just called every one of your party's leaders judgmental. Good job.

It is not right for the Christian to beat the living daylights out of a homosexual, deny him food, or try and make him feel like he's a worthless piece of garbage, or other similarly cruel actions. Those who do those things are not loving their enemies, and are not being Christian in their actions; they are not helping anyone move toward Christ, but instead are actually alienating them. Christ would not approve. We'll call them "legalists" for the rest of this post.

Many homosexuals (not all, but many) seem to think that Christians should not even be allowed to calmly and rationally debate their position, using the un-Christian actions of legalists as ammunition, while reserving the right to calmly and rationally debate their position. Some (not all, but some) even go further, actually punishing Christians who speak their mind on the matter. Double standard much?