Miamilawyer, “contains much allegory and the traditions, customs and law have value but are not absolute” ” is not necessarily non-Orthodox. it depends on how you define your terms (and you know that many laws start with definitions). How many are many? For example, Chazal say that “an eye for an eye” means monetary compensation (and prove that lex talionis is untenable). Traditions, customs and law are certainly not absolute in the sense that the same answer applies to all cases. There is lechatchila and b’diavad, shaat hadechak, hefsed meruba, kevod haberiot, etc.
As for “lo baShemayim hi”, that means that we follow human logic (using internal rules of deduction) rather than to come to conclusions rather than relying on miracles or nevua. By definition Chazal’s halachic and ethical statements are correct. This is even true where they contradict each other as there are several possible conclusions. We also have that in Mathematics. A quadratic equation can have two answers. A cubic equation three, a quartic equation four, etc.