Leviticus is most definitely an instruction (or at least, it's the idealized version of an instruction book for editors writing after the fact). But the Bible as a whole is not an instruction book. What would you make out of the wisdom and poetry? I guess Song of Solomon is an instruction book in a The Joy of Sex kind of way, but that's not usually what people mean.

I don't want to do a point-by-point discussion of list (unless you really want to), except to say that much of the Old Testament you mention is probably not exactly historically accurate, and there isn't any anti-semitism in the books of Matthew and John; although, I agree that many people have wrongly used much of the New Testament to support their own antisemitic beliefs.

Don't me wrong, there's lots of moral instruction in the Bible, and we would be doing very well if most people could just halfway follow the recommendations for proper behavior in the New Testament. But that's not the main purpose. We might profitably make a comparison to eastern philosophies like Taosim: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." I don't think I'd go so far as to say that one's relationship with God or God's relationship with the world is entirely beyond the power of description, but it's certainly beyond easy description.

Does the OT even matter anymore?

The Old Testament still matters. If nothing else it is full of beautiful poetry, challenging philosophy, and interesting history. But it also provides a context for much of the works of Christ.

"Obi - Every example - every one - you provided is from the OT. Show me in the NT where God or Jesus doesn't show love and I will show you how you are misinterpretting that particular scripture."

That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid...

It's a Bible with TWO Testaments--criticizing the OT is a perfectly-fair way to criticize Christianity...they chose to keep it in their "canon," after all.

You can argue that Jesus changes this or overrides that...but regardless--

You can't write God ordering Saul to slaughter the Amalekites.
You just can't.
You (that is, Christians or "deist Christians") chose to keep that in the canon.
You could have excised that or completely disavowed that incident...
You don't...or they didn't, but either way--

Jesus doesn't disavow that action.
Jesus doesn't disavow slavery.
Jesus doesn't disavow the "cut off a woman's hand" bit from Deuteronomy.
Jesus doesn't this-that-and-the-other...

The most common counter-criticism I've heard against this form of criticism of Christianity is as follows, and it's one I believe you've used before yourself, Draug, in essence, it's a two word claim--

"You're cherry-picking."

That the anti-theist is cherry-picking incidents from here and there and all over the OT (I'l get to the NT in a moment) and that's not fair.

Well...you're doing a bit of the same, Draug, when you/the theist waves a hand at these atrocities but holds up the nice poetry of, say, the Psalms or the meditative thought in Ecclesiastes and even Job.

(And as a quick aside, Job might very well be my favorite book in the Bible...it's first of all so structurally different from the rest and almost set up like a Socratic Dialogue that it's actually kind of refreshing...I of course don't agree with the conclusion, but at least 1. the book seems to at least be TRYING to recognize and discuss a very legitimate problem with belief, that is, the Problem of Evil, and 2. This is of course not the way it was intended to be read--though it'd be hilarious if it actually was and a proto-atheist was playing a colossal joke on the theists--but Job CAN function as a text making the case for anti-theism...in the same way Dostoyevsky in his works clearly backs Orthodox Christianity but at least recognizes atheists have valid arguments to make and represents those arguments fairly, the Book of Job, even if it tries to in the end dissuade readers from siding with those against God, DOES present the anti-theist's case against God, albeit inadvertently. There's a lot more grey and a lot less black-and-white in that book...again, it's a lot more like a discussion, and DOESN'T portray God in the same light as elsewhere in the OT...nowhere else does God just stroll up to Satan and say "Hey, there's my good buddy Job...wanna make a bet, Lucifer?" That's sort of action seems far more like something a GREEK god or goddess would do, ie, make a bet with another god or goddess as to the actions of mortals...that combined with the pseudo-Socratic nature of the dialogue really makes me wonder if there wasn't a Hellenizing-influence in its writing, it really does stand out...there was a list made that was supposed to compile the Great Works of Western Civilization from Gilgamesh through to the later part of the 20th century, and The Book of Job made the cut--I agree. Great early work, again, possibly the finest work of the OT...and it's no coincidence that it's also so very DIFFERENT from other OT works, even by the admission of Biblical scholars.)

So...however "quick" that "quick aside" actually was...

You cherry-pick, Draug.
In part you cherry-pick NT passages over OT ones...
And I understand there's an argument that in some cases NT is supposed to "trump" OT ones (and I use that term loosely, so don't smite me here...)
But again:

Where's Jesus on slavery?
Where's Jesus on the cruelty towards women that's explicit throughout the OT, especially in that passage of Deuteronomy I mentioned?
Where's Jesus on genocide and infanticide, as condoned again and again in the OT?

The closest we can argue is that Jesus takes issue with the "Old Law" in some form...and really the interpretations and implications as to how, why, and what affect that is supposed to have is VERY hotly disputed, Draug, and in no cases does it eliminate the injustices I described above...

Which aren't minor offenses, I might add. I'm not slapping God on the wrist (as it were) for a small technicality here...

He condones slavery!
He condones selling your daughter!
He condones chopping a woman's hand off if it mashes a man's privates!
He condones Elisha sicking two bears to maul some kids who were calling him names!
He condones killing every non-Noah-family-member on Earth via flood (including babies?!)
He condones Solomon having enough wives and mistresses to make Joseph Smith blush!
He condones Saul killing every man, woman, elderly person, child and ANIMAL in the Amalekite tribe (and not only condone but COMMANDS it, and then gets mad that the genocide of an entire people wasn't thorough enough!)

That's not even a tenth of what we could drag up...
And these aren't minor problems...
And they're not problems Jesus corrects or speaks out against...
So how can you discount these examples as "only" being OT issues?
They're still valid...still "on the books," if you will...
Jesus doesn't make them go away, doesn't change them, doesn't apologize or speak out against them...

So why doesn't it count to you?

"Show me in the NT where God or Jesus doesn't show love and I will show you how you are misinterpretting that particular scripture."

I think you probably know what I'm going to say, but I'll say it anyway--

How about Hell?

Whether they speak of directly or not, that's still their punishment for not following God/Jesus...and I can already sense an argument on why they offer love and compassion (and I'll say maybe I can see an argument for that with Jesus, I think I've already said why I don't buy God as a compassionate character AT ALL, compassion and genocide just don't go together, I'm sorry) and so if you reject that, why, it's your OWN fault for landing in Eternal Damnation...

I don't buy it--why set up Eternal Damnation at all?
Actually...why set up EITHER part of that--
Surely if it's a punishment, of my own choice or otherwise, no one, not even someone as wicked as Hitler or Stalin, could possibly take an ETERNITY to shape up...
And why would a loving God set up the kind of wicked damnation the NT invokes?

"But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 8:12

And a quick Wikipedia check for that oh-so-famous phrase says it appears seven times in the NT...

So...really? The OT wasn't brutal enough? God needed to add THAT?

To paraphrase Hitchens (you had to know I would, sooner or later)--

At least in the OT, once you die, God's done with you.
He doesn't punish the dead.
"It's not until Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild" comes along that ETERNAL punishment follows.
How is that loving?
You've just ratcheted up the pain and suffering and torment!
"But Man's own Free Will--"
Free Will or no Free Will, you really think THAT level of punishment is justified?
And for ETERNITY?

Billions of years old is the universe...that's just the tiniest fraction of ETERNITY...!

Really?

I'm sure you'll come back with an argument how that's completely loving, fair, or else Man's fault and not at all God being a callous prick...

But as you do, at least answer me this--WHY?

If Jesus and the NT is supposed to represent a "better" take on things, why would God save his worst, most incomprehensibly-awful punishment for when this Lamb of God hits the scene?

The OT is a brutal, NASTY place...but at least I can give the Hebrews one break--
The world they lived in WAS brutal and nasty.
That doesn't make their explaining genocide away OK, but still...
But they never took it to the level of "Kill the Amalekites AND torture them terribly for all eternity."

That's not love. It's just not. No loving God would create or allow such a place. Period.

"When you were younger and you did wrong, your parents would punish you. Now I know in today's society, beating a kid's ass is considered wrong, but it isn't and it never was."

...Rather beside the point, but while I agree a good spanking could straighten out some of these brats today (hey, I got spanked, same as everyone, even Roald Dahl, who was very much against caning, admitted a spanking here and there is probably good for a kid) let's not kid ourselves--it's not ALWAYS OK. There are those who took and still take it it way, way, WAY too far.

(Ironically enough one such person was a schoolmaster of Roald Dahl's...who beat boys until they bled and then some...who went on to become...Archbishop of Canterbury! What a nice, holy man, preaching love and peace while beating boys to the point of blood! ...Yeah, a cheap shot, but even you have to admit, the irony's palatable there.) ;)

"But the fact is, Christ punished the money changers and merchants sinning in God's temple by overturning their tables and upsetting their wares to teach them a lesson of what the temple is supposed to be for. He then sat down and taught further on this theme showing patience and love. so, just like a good parent spanks their child to prevent them from repeating a wrong, so Christ made a spectacle to enlighten the merchancts and the moneychangers."

I can see both sides of the argument in terms of fair or foul with Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers...

Nevertheless, even if we accept that as a good action--

How does that display of love possibly outweigh all the bad I've just mentioned?

Obi, would you invest in a copy of Strunk and White, with particular focus on Chapter II? Even krellin's mad mewlings are easier to follow sometimes.

Anyway, to the content of your argument, you're making the same mistake (though to the opposite conclusion) which people who use the Bible to support slavery or anti-gay laws or patriarchy do. You're missing the larger story in favor of looking at individual stories. It's missing the forest for the trees. (ignoring that there are lots of more explicit, for example, anti-slavery statements in even the Old Testament).

But to get to some of your specifics: most of the Old Testament stuff you are talking about is not historical. It is a literaryish creation. Maybe historical fiction would be a good word. In the old days, after all, they had a different understanding of history etc than we do today.

Also, I should note: Not all Christians believe in either eternal damnation or the existence of Hell as an eternal place of suffering. I don't, for example.