Well to add something to this debate, I once read an article about how some Afghan tribes, I don't know which ones have completely different morales than we do here in the West.
As in, if someone breaks some kind of honour code, then the one whose honour has been breached has the right to kill the other person and if not that, he has the right to take some of the person's property or livestock.
But the breach of honour can anything from the more sever of harming someone in that person's family to just an insult we would deem as not even worthy of a response.
Just trying to add that the morale code of each society is different, depending on many factors.
At the time the Old Testament was written, the morale code probably was actually good. I however know for a fact that very soon afterwards people stopped following the literal meaning of the Old Testament as people started writing the Oral Torah (Mishna) and the Talmud and everything in between and after (Tosafot, Pirkei Avot,...).
Literalists among Jews are very few, at least in the way of how it seems some Christians tend to hold to it. As in, most of the laws aren't upheld like it says in the Old Testament. You don't actually get stoned for not upholding the Sabbath or for not respecting your parents/elders/god.
People have been 'updating' the morale code since it was written, and even if some of it is quite outdated, it is actually still being revised everyday.
So my point of view is that yes, the morale code of the Old Testament is OLD, I even believe that the revisions are OLD, but I wouldn't condemn all of it like Jemy does. There is quite a good deal of good in the Old and New Testaments and even in the other books. I know there's a lot of bad as well, but showing only the bad side or only the good side is bad. It's not all black or white, there's a lot of grey in between and I think this has to be pointed out.