I can't help but notice you don't mention the others. 
To say in your previous post that you look to the bible for morality, and now say you are not christian means you were either being deliberately misleading, or perhaps you are trolling.
I said I wasn't a Christian before. Perhaps you should have noted it then. Further, just because someone looks to the Bible for morality does not require them to be a Christian. Perhaps you should take note of that as well.
As for mentioning the others, I did.
You presented quotes in two groups.
Of those groups, the ones from the Tanakh are in accord except for the one I specifically addressed, which is directly paired to another, for which your claim that they contradict is in error.
The other group is from the New Testament, which I noted I am not the best person to try and explain.
So either you are deliberately misleading on my response or just trolling.
That was one example (remember I said I'd start with something easy). As for supernatural issues, the entirety of the Bible's code is born from and reflects supernatural issues. You behave as the invisible sky fairy wants, or you burn.
And it was a poor example, as it has nothing to do with morality, and so was quite easy to refute.
As for the Bible code being dependent on the supernatural aspects, you are simply wrong, as I demonstrated.
As for your bigoted Atheism, that seems to suggest that you are in fact trolling.
Yes it is. The moral principles of the bible are rather specific and varied, and cannot be covered by one sentence no matter how pithy. ou know this very well, and one presumes you like antagonizing others. You are beginning to look more like a troll.
So your religious bigotry is fine but my faith is antagonistic because of your ignorance of it?
Uh huh.
Yes, for again it does not cover everything. It is a brief comment upon a much longer screed.
Once again, yes it does.
And let me be clear:
I am not responsible for your ignorance.
Your lack of understanding of the Bible, caused by whatever, is your lack of understanding, not mine. I cannot, and will not, be held guilty of something simply because you are completely unaware of simple principles.
May I ask, if you are not Christian why you insist on using their Bible as part of your argument? Again, to suggest you are not Christian, yet defend it so strongly implies you are either lying or have an emotional investment in said faith (or at least an attachment to it). Which again implies cognitive dissonance.
Seriously?
Really, seriously?
Okay, first, there are these people called "Jews". They believe in that part of the Bible referred to as the "Old Testament", but which they call the Tanakh. You may have seen me use that term. The "T" in Tanakh stands for "Torah", which is the first 5 books of the Tanakh, which is divided into several parts for reasons relevant to Jews.
Then there are the whole variety of other groups that refer to the Bible in one form of other, from Samaritans to Baha'i to Noahides. For all of them the Bible is a relevant set of scriptures, yet none of them are Christians.
Once again you are hurling imprecations because you are ignorant of some very essential, and rather simple, facts. You really might want to address your egregious lack of knowledge before continuing.
Nietzche was more of a perspectivist who believed religious faith led to nihilism, but his commentary on the morals of the various judeo-christian religions quite often verged on crossing over into moral nihilism (and it's not like perspectivism taken far enough doesn't lead to nihilsm itself). It's why the christians of the times hated him, and many still do. They regard him as the father of moral nihilism (regardless of whether or not that is true), which they cannot abide, and hate him equally for finding the flaws in their ideological beliefs. He regarded the death of God as ultimately good for society. You cannot hold that worldview and be Christian, as being a Christian one believes all good comes from God. Even if your just taking the piss to play the part of a troll you cannot sincerely believe in both the Judeo-Christian morality that Nietzche mocked, and simultaneously believe in Nietzche's ideals without cognitive dissonance.
That is completely and utterly wrong.
Nietzsche despised nihilism. He was writing primarily to counter nihilism, attempting to present an alternative to them.
Nietzsche was quite dismissive of Christianity. He did not feel it led in and of itself to nihilism, though he did feel that organized Christianity had led to the corruption of values that permitted nihilism to arise and thrive.
He did not view the death of divinity as a good thing in and of itself. Indeed he described it as a horrible thing, condemning the people who had perpetrated the murder. He did regard it as useful in clearing away the decadence of Christianity, but he absolutely despised the death of real morality that it engendered.
Nietzsche himself spoke highly of Jesus, and Paul for that matter, who I have little use for. As such, accepting Judeo-Christian morality while rejecting Christianity is far from incompatible with Nietzsche. The real problem though is that you have leaped to a conclusion assuming that my statement that I looked to Smith, Nietzsche and the Bible for morality means that I embrace and endorse every single thing stated in all of them. That is a false assumption on your part, though you clearly see it as an excuse to troll.
As for anti-semitism, . . .
I'm actually shocked that you are aware of that.
It is my assertion that the supernatural is the basis for Christian morality. If you separate one from the other, what then is the basis for that morality if you face no punishment in the afterlife?
If you read Nietzsche, you can find the answer with some effort.
If you read Smith, the answer is blatantly clear.
Of course if you read the Bible very carefully you can also discover the answer within it as well, but you have to slog through digressions, much as with Nietzsche, so it can be difficult.
You might also want to learn that Judaism is not predicated on the same kind of punishment scheme as Christianity, so your obsessive focus on Christianity in trying to challenge me is a complete waste, as I do not believe it and will not be bound to defend it.
I am debating in my own way, which granted is a very odd roundabout way, but it is to see whether or not you truly believe what you say, or are taking an indefensible position in order to elicit emotional comment. In short, some part of me is fairly sure you're just bullshitting to see how many people you can piss off.
So then you are trolling.
While getting pissy and accusing me of trolling.
Uh huh.
When I have decided to my satisfaction that you are not I will perhaps enter debate in a more traditional manner.
Hoping of course that by then I consider you worthy of engaging in such a manner.
Hint: You are making an exceptionally good case that you aren't.
Much of your posting has been phrased in a manner designed to deflect from what your supposed position is because you guess that people will make assumptions.
No, most of my posting has been phrased in a manner to cover as many generalities as possible as opposed to inflicting a one million word dissertation on my path to and comprehension of morality.
Or just, you know, shouting "RTFM!" and not actually answering anything.
That, or you're a bald faced liar who changes positions depending on the argument used by your opponent. Additionally, you are occasionally quite condescending , which is common of trolls who simply wish to provoke people into becoming emotional.
Says the admitted troll.
If you're debating something you genuinely believe in it should shine through eventually. Be more forthright without prevarication and I shall take you seriously. 
I've been quite forthright.
If you mean, "provide a specific answer" then do provide a specific question.
"What do you believe?" is not specific.
"What do you believe about [very precise issue]?" is specific.
For example:
"Do you believe the Creator has a physical form that may be perceived?"
No, I do not.
However I believe the Creator may produce various manifestations that are similar enough to physical forms to be considered such for most general purposes and discussions.
"How do you reconcile conflicting statements regarding that within the Bible?"
I don't.
I didn't write it, so I don't worry about reconciling them. I might suggest it is because of human flaws in the writing, but that is just a best guess based on human nature.
More importantly, I don't consider them relevant. Loving the Creator for the infinite gifts given to me, particularly the infinite love, and loving my neighbor because it produces the greatest quality of life possible are relevant, so I focus on them and leave questions about physical forms to the ivory tower theologians. Certainly I will learn the answer after I die, and that is sufficient for me.
Of course it requires a degree of intellectual integrity and actual competent knowledge to be able to phrase questions like that rather than play the preening troll.
