Your article does its best to try to demolish the bible as an anchor but you don’t replace it with any kind of anchor to put yourself under. At the end of the day by allowing serious* flaws to the bible you allow for your interpretation to be king even when that contradicts what the bible might say because in your view that section is flawed.

That ultimately makes your views and thoughts entirely subjective and likely highly cultural. Perhaps in your case a product of western left leaning cultural thought. It gives you no guarantees at all that God exists, the resurrection happened or that heaven exists because maybe those parts of the bible are wrong. In turn you can give no peace at all to those seeking truth.

You also seem to have selected fundamentalism to take apart rather than looking at the far more serious Christian scholarship which has a very good explanation of why we can eat various foods and wear various clothes (it’s to do with that part of the bible being declared temporary and complete).

A far more anchored and secure interpretation says that there is something above us - the bible and that if our feelings drift out of line with the bible then we are wrong. We do not rule out in any way the role of the Holy Spirit or Gods ability to communicate outside of the bible by doing this. We do not rule out flawed human interpretation either. It does however give us both security and an anchor and it should encourage humility.

*this does not rule out simpler flaws such as typos or grammar and should encourage an understanding of the bible based on multiple sections together