I note that you ignore nearly all of the points that I have made, preferring to concentrate on the least odious practice of bondservice. Elsewhere you argue against numerous positions that I have not taken up. You then terminate your screed with a thinly veiled reference to the threat of eternal damnation hanging over me if I don't see things your way.
But there is yet hope. You concede that Biblical Law was framed to be appropriate for the Bronze Age goatherds of the time, and you urge me to "examine things in perspective". I agree, this is exactly the way that Biblical Law should be viewed. It probably was a step forward on the morals of the time. Moral Relativism in fact. Can I urge you in turn to "examine things in perspective" and to ponder whether creation tales and histories that were also appropriate for Bronze Age goatherds should trump the evidence available to modern science.
Ok, then let me re-phrase it, you are trying to condemn the scriptures, which have led countless souls to God across the ages, including mine, in a vain effort to excuse yourself from having to heed their witness. And yes, I believe that if you continue to harden your heart then you will get your heart's desire- eternal seperation from God who created and loves you.
BTW, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of ingnoring my more salient points as well.
I do agree that the natural universe is also a witness to God, and that the creation account must be interpreted in the light of what the natural world tells us. I am an Old Earth Creationist for example.
If the laws of the Old Testament were a "step forward" then they cannot be "Moral Relativism" in the classical definition of that term. A "step forward" implies that there is an objective moral order. Relativism implies that there is not, that it is all a matter of personal preference.