Never said either of the things in bold and never will.
The Bible identifies how people should act within a society where slavery existed in a different form than America knew it. It doesn't condone it. It was misused within the construct of American history to justify slavery and ironically, you're misusing it in the exact same way now for the purpose of condemning all of Christianity.
The Catholic Church condemned slavery in the 1500s and American Quakers were central to abolitionism. They were absolutely inspired by their faith.
For real, dude, we have similar politics, but you're way, way overextended in your critique of Christianity. There is so, so much worth criticizing about organized religions, including Christianity, but to do it right, you have to differentiate. You're kind of acting like that teenager who is about to get laid for the first time in his life, but is so overexcited he uses his hands like a whack-a-mole mallet before "misfiring" while still in the "holster," so to speak.
For example, in leaping to the erroneous assumption that I think Christians have a monopoly on morals, you reveal the embarrassingly underdeveloped thought that there is basically one type of Christian, and you're not actually refuting the idea that Christians at least have a seat at the table of morality. Yet you seem ready to fight any example demonstrating the well-established and accurate knowledge that Christianity -- like other faiths around the world -- has been the drive behind many, many moral movements in world history.
And now you'll probably come back at me with the Crusades, b/c when I say there is even the slightest positive thing about Christianity, you apparently can't fathom that and then interpret it as some absolute claim you can destroy w/ a singular example. Eyeroll