I had a prof in seminary that believed we were still, to this day, to abstain from eating blood. Just about every culture has blood sausage of some kind, so I asked in class if they were to not eat them, and he said they should not. I was flabbergast. That seems to me to be saying you do have to give up your culture and take on the Jewish culture.
I interpret the passage to mean they should not eat such things to keep from offending Jews, but not to worry about it in other cases. I think that works with Paul’s view of meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. as well.

The Jerusalem Conference laid many groundrules for how discussions and decisions are made. There was to be no ironfist where the apostles word was always right. Not even that the Pharisees were right either.
So there were important precedents in how believers should work together.
The actual decisions the Conference came to are tricky. Paul basically said eating stuff offered to idols was not a sin later, but the significant part was that we should never use our freedom in Jesus as a license to do as we please.
Items 2, 3 and 4 were probably to lessen Jewish sensitivities in the Roman world.
But it was still the fact that all believers, Jew and Gentile, should live in harmony as disciples of Jesus, and this is what Paul recognised. He went further bringing husband/wife, slave/master, etc into harmony by submitting to each other. Radical stuff, then and now!
What about Item 2? The definition is very broad as to what the Gentiles should and should not do as far as sexual immorality was concerned. But the principle of committment to Jesus and thus committment to our partner was there for all to see, and that was what made the followers of Jesus different. That is, there was not the pre-occupation with sex that seems to burden some. Sex is a gift from God, and not to be abused in any way. Sex was and still is, commitment to another in love for Jesus sake. Not all can do it, but it is the ideal. The grace of God covers any gaps in more ways that we can understand.

Dr. McKnight, This is a favorite text of those who advocate insider movements (IM) of Muslims who trust Christ but who remain in Islam. IM says that since Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism (Acts 15:19-21), Muslims should not convert to Christianity (Christendom) but can socially and religiously remain as Muslims (1 Cor. 7:20). Since you are the NT scholar, I wonder if you can comment on this: aren’t the 4 prohibitions you outlined above related to pagan temple worship that was common among 1st Century Gentiles? If so, then it seems to me that Acts 15 says that Gentiles do not have to go through the Old Coventant first to get to the New Covenant(PTL), but it also says that they should not identify with their old pagan spiritual identity (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14ff). So Acts 15 seems to say that Muslims who come to Christ don’t have to convert to Christendom(PTL), but that they should cease certain elements of Islamic worship incompatible with biblical faith, i.e. they cannot religiously remain in Islam because they have a new religious/spiritual identity in Christ. So my question is, are the prohibitions in Acts 15:19-21 relating to pagan temple worship?