The call-no-man-father guy is wrong, but the Leviticus point is moot for Christians -- having been released from the dietary and cleanliness restrictions of the law by the blood of Christ. (Hence, the "new" covenent; that contract has been supersceded.)
I'm going to look at your statement from an atheist's point of view.
You say there is a God. And that God gave man laws. The laws he gives supercedes human law. And human laws were inspired by God's laws.
Now you are saying that if humans breaks laws (found ironically in the Bible and particularly in the Old Testament) they are guilty. The humans have need of a savior because laws are broken. But human saviors cannot pay the penalty. The savior must be supernatural. But the law requires only the lawgiver pay the penalty for lawlessness. So, the savior, who is God, pays the penalty for all law breaking. The act is called, in legal terms, a pardon, amnesty, or some preachers call it grace. The amnesty, pardon or grace by your reckoning makes all the laws broken null and void, especially the Old Testament laws (I'm still fuzzy why God really hated those laws since he made them to begin with. Makes you wonder if he wasn't screwing with man's mind)
Now if the laws are null and void why do I need a savior? No law=no need for savior. No law and no need for a savior means I have no need to be saved. And if I have no need to be saved then religion is moot.
Or another way to look at your reasoning. I shoot a person. Person dies. A nice king says I'm pardoned and freed. He knows I did it. But the king is having a really good day and was gracious enough to zero out my debt to society. In fact the king is so gracious he gives amnesty to all that committed crimes. Does the king's pardon mean the laws are voided so all can be anarchists, to the point of shooting anyone anytime, including the king?
But I admire the brash religious concept: Anarchistic, atheistic christianity. The savior gives no need for saving because he makes null and void the very laws you broke that put the penalty on you that you need saving from and thus provides in the end no salvation. Seems dubious but what do I know. I guess I'm saved if I accept the concept that begs the question-What need do we have for any law?
Well, I should clarify: all those who don't accept Christ are still under the Law. (So go get circumcised, you heathen!) They also must follow the Law perfectly, in thought, word, and deed throughout their entire life.
Christians, in contrast, have an addendum to the contract -- all those that accept Christ don't have to follow the dietary, et al, portions of the law relating to being cleansed. They probably should follow the rest (the more substantive stuff) --- but if the mess up, they will be forgiven.
While this sounds easy, the Christians must also follow the Holy Spirit --- what I call the gut feeling of right and wrong --- which is sometimes quite a bit harder than the Law.
The "license-to-sin" argument to which you allude is old. Back in the early church --- I think in Ephisus (some port town) --- the Christians took their forgiveness as an excuse to have orgies at church. (I believe they were called "gnostics," but I could be confusing them with other heretics.)
That was frowned upon by the apostles.
And explained by Paul --- that, as a Christian one must strive to NOT to sin. You will fail. So repent and try again. With God's help you will do better.
And with the Holy Spirit's help you will WANT to do better, which is the most important part. I do not want to sin. It is a slap in the face of Christ, disrespectful of His sacrifice. It is another thorn on His crown. It is this inner change that makes me a better person than I was than before I was a Christian.