I did not. The
only thing I said He didn't need to condemn are the things that aren't bad, so saying nothing doesn't apply there. "Condone" is only used in context of negative things because there would be nothing wrong with condoning good things.
It does, by definition:
condone
[kuh n-dohn]
- to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like): The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.
You just don't like the negative connotations of the word because we both agree that overlooking bad things is bad.
I was hesitant because I was pretty sure you were only asking so that you could do what you did and dismiss anything I've said about whether the Bible allows for slavery by attacking my moral foundation. I wasn't debating with you on whether or not slavery was immoral, I was debating with you on whether the Bible allowed it. One is a moral discussion, one is not, that is why it is irrelevant. If my moral reasoning is off you could say, "Who are you to say that slavery is wrong?", but I haven't made that argument with you, so your dismissal is a weak attempt to escape an argument that you have lost. Your desperation towards the end of our discussion led you to resort to conflating the two so that you could dismiss everything I've said out of hand. My reasons for thinking slavery is wrong are different from my reasons for thinking the Bible allowed it, but you can't allow that distinction because it takes all the wind out of the defeater argument you think you have that is, in actuality, garbage.
That you thought my limited answer was enough to make claims about it is telling. You believe your moral framework is one way, so clearly even things you know little about must be the opposite way. Face it, you only asked me about my morals because you have a pre-scripted response of "only objective morality comes from God". So without asking a
single question for clarity or detail you jumped right into imagining things to try and undermine something that you knew next to nothing about.
I only "blame" the OT law and Jesus for allowing slavery in a pragmatic sense. The Bible is, at
least in part, there to tell people how to act. And if it's important to act in a certain way, then it should describe that way accurately and fully because
clearly we don't figure things out on our own very quickly at all. I do blame you, however, for doing one of two simple things I asked you not to do. You told me you were
only doing something else, and that was false, just as I predicted all along.
All it takes for something to be legal is for there to not be a law against it. There is no law against involuntary, permanent servitude except in specific examples which the OT made the distinctions very clear. You can beat your slaves, you can even breed your slaves, in the sense that you can give a slave a wife and you get to keep his kids, and they even made the distinction to treat Israelites better than foreigners. It's not quite a racist policy, more like nationalist, but it's pretty darn close to how we eventually made only blacks slaves here in America. Rome was more egalitarian about it than them.
There's no law against rape either. It's absolutely laughable that you think a passage describing how soldiers are to deal with their POW wives who, in the context of the distant cites we were discussing, which listed these humans off with the rest of the "plunder" and "spoils of war", just witnessed those same soldiers slaughter their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers, is "anti-rape legislation". Marrying someone doesn't make it not rape anymore. The idea that these women who witnessed that went willingly into a marriage bed with those soldiers other than at the end of a sword is ridiculous. Those women were sex slaves, and that's worse.
LOL! You're the only one I'm bothering to keep it from! Why in the world would I PM you? And now you're calling
me the liar. There's no sense continuing our discussion about what the Bible allows and condones now that you think you've got this ace up your sleeve about my morals that's entirely irrelevant to the conversation we were actually having. And I'm certainly not going to bother continuing our conversation on morals that you'll simply use as an attack against unrelated arguments. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself you've comported yourself in a completely honest manner. Whatever helps you sleep at night. We're done here.