Right. Because those are happening in the present day; and present two test cases for your alleged "principles".
One is the deliberate killing of infants without even pretending divine sanction; the other is the killing of infants in the present day, claiming ongoing GENERAL divine sanction, not tied to a particular military/territorial campaign.
I called both the latter practices as vile and disgusting, and you’re accusing me for holding those views? Where do you come from, Idiotsville?
No, you must have me confused with some of your friends. Responding to atrocities with merely an exclamation of distaste, not of a claim to universal morality, doesn't make your attack on Judaism (and therefore by implication, Christianity) look like anything more than a pretext. You are more concerned with "gotcha" points from historical texts (which, if they favored Christianity, you would be attacking with abandon) than with the deaths of real children.
Especially those in the present day committed by Hindus against their OWN children, as metmom pointed out in post 574.
As far as the explanation goes, you are a troll.
Cheers!
I called out against those practices for what they truly are: vile and disgusting. What do you do, I'd like to hear. Write eloquent essays on the same?
Metmom's article-reference explanation has already been provided. Refer to my previous post to her.
Asking for explanation for seemingly irreconcilable verses, is not an “attack”. That you think that to be the case, tells me enough about how rational you are. This is a kind of behaviour typically expected from Jehadis, too.
Ask Geert Wilders*.
* - Fitna comprises largely of verses directly taken from the Quran. What he got in return, was death threats.