Am I the only one who feels this way about the Old Testament?

[The Salad Days]

All the OT stories are both historical and allegorical...

1Cor 10:11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

[The Salad Days]

I mean yeah, this is what happens when you try to reconcile a collection of texts compiled over several centuries by dozens of authors holding differing moral codes into an eternal tome of reference for ethical behaviour....

You're having trouble reconciling the Old Testament with the New?! I didn't even know there were "problems" needing to be reconciled. Nor do I see the authors holding "differing moral codes". All the writers of the Old Testament (expect possibly Job, which may have been written before Moses), lived under the same moral code (the Law of Moses). And the New Testament establishes a new covenant enabling men to fulfill the spirit of the Law of Moses without all the exterior/ceremonial clutter (clutter put in place that pointed to the Messiah).

You'd be better off just saying, "I don't believe the bible", than using a silly uneducated argument as an excuse.  Jesus and the writers of the New Testament had no problem "reconciling" the Old and New.

[The Salad Days]

I’ve never read the Old Testament, let alone the whole Bible, in its entirety. Even so, it’s impossible for me to read it and not want to literally slap God in the face for murdering all of those people and what not.

No, you're not the only one. This idea is as old as the New Testament itself, Marcion, e.g., believed around the year 140 BC that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.

So, you're saying he's not the only heretic, as Marcion blazed the trail of heresy long ago?!

Well, that's comforting!

[The Salad Days]

You're having trouble reconciling the Old Testament with the New?!

Not that it troubles me (why would it?), but I was making a hopefully obvious point that different authors tend to have different views. This is not a divide between Old vs New Testament but a fact about the relationship between pretty much any two books in the Bible (and even within books).   
 

I didn't even know there were "problems" needing to be reconciled.

I agree. I don't see authorial differences as a "problem" which needs to be "reconciled". Quite the contrary, I think this multiplicity makes the Bible a far more interesting set of texts to study than had it been written by one person at one time advancing one particular viewpoint.

All the writers of the Old Testament (expect possibly Job, which may have been written before Moses)

This is a curious claim, since
1) We have no idea how old Moses is (or if he even existed)
2) Job contains a significant number of Aramaic borrowings, which just one piece of evidence heavily suggesting a late date of composition. But hey, maybe Moses spoke Aramaic.

lived under the same moral code (the Law of Moses).

Which, even if we accept as true, says nothing about how individual interpretations of the Law on the part of Biblical authors can result in different moral applications (indeed, isn't this the entire point of halacha?). Because in the very next sentence you give a significant difference in how the Law is to be morally understood compared the traditional Jewish understanding based on the Hebrew Bible...

And the New Testament establishes a new covenant enabling men to fulfill the spirit of the Law of Moses without all the exterior/ceremonial clutter (clutter put in place that pointed to the Messiah).

Obviously the Jews themselves, who had been living under the Law and studying the Hebrew Bible for centuries, didn't consider their own laws "clutter" or were convinced that their own texts proved Jesus' Messiahship.

You'd be better off just saying, "I don't believe the bible", than using a silly uneducated argument as an excuse.  Jesus and the writers of the New Testament had no problem "reconciling" the Old and New.

An "uneducated argument" which virtually every critical scholar considers a matter of fact.

I guarantee Jmfcst/whoever this Kansas milk person is thinks he's "one of the elect" along with people like DC Al Fine et al. 

It's not worth arguing with them.  If they disagree with you, they'll just report you and the "nearly-elect" moderators will moderate your posts.

that's "the" jmfcst, to you....and he doesn't report people.