This is a genuine question, because one of the reasons I left Christianity (I was raised Christian) was that I didn’t like how they hate gay people, are pro-life, etc., and overall are pretty hypocritical. But as I got older, I realized there are Catholics who are pro-choice, aren’t homophobic, and don’t have an issue with having sex before marriage, etc., and basically are not stereotypical religious people at all. But I have to ask—how do they justify this? I mean, it must be very confusing, because if the Bible does say being gay is a sin and you are not homophobic and are pro-LGBTQ+, then you are basically saying sinning is okay, which goes against their very religion. How about Catholics who swear? Basically, how do liberal Christians/Catholics justify their religion? Why be religious if you aren’t going to go all in?
The Bible starts to fall apart very quickly if you interpret everything as universal and literal. Generally, people trying to understand the Bible will view it as a collection of historical documents, written by different people, to different people, at different times. For example, its pretty much universally understood that rules against eating pork were specifically for Jews, and possibly even for that time period only. In terms of the “pro-life” stuff, the Bible doesn’t really even say anything about it apart from a song that references conception poetically, although it does notably include instructions on how to perform an abortion so… and for the homophobia, its much more intensely debated because of both the historical context, and the wishy-washy language within the Bible itself.
The Scriptures are literal and symbolic at the same time, considering that it’s how it was interpreted historically.
As far as “pro-life” is concerned, the Scriptures’ silence on this matter is because, from what I understand, you never sacrificed your children to strange gods. Abortion is, to most (including myself), a form of ritualistic human sacrifice nowadays, which is why most people are pro-life.
The prohibitions against pork and other unclean meats are still in effect to this very day. Only if a commandment required a Levitical priesthood (this was since replaced with Melchizedek) and/or a temple (which won’t be built a third time), we don’t have to do it anymore. This was since 31 A.D., in fact.
For the unclean foods bit, Jesus may have retconned that with Mark 7:19.
What Messiah Yeshua’s talking about isn’t meat. Instead, it has to do with eating with those who don’t practice what you practice. This comes straight from the NIV disinterpretation (of which is intentional), saying all meats are clean. This isn’t true once you look at the Hebraic (notice I didn’t say “Jewish”) understanding of it.
When you say intentional, do you mean it’s interpreted that way as part of an agenda? Why would someone do this? Other versions of the verse make similar purity claims as well. From the surrounding verses, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying what you eat does not matter in the context of morals/sin rather than it being symbolic of people with different practices.
It was interpreted in such a way to allow anyone to eat meat that isn’t food according to Leviticus, and the “Food Chapter” as it’s called. It was a way to basically disregard that commandment (one of eighty and three) entirely. And yes, it was intentional.
Also, the Kashrut laws (not Kosher, that’s different) are in effect to this very day, hence, the list of meats that are not food.