The only reason Christianity survived is because many Christian thinkers read Plato and Aristotle and adopted good philosophies of the pagans.
...
What about the scene where Jesus sends some pigs over the cliff? Of course we know Jewish people don't like pigs but God created them. Pig meat apparently spoiled in the harsh sun so it was considered not of value. This is a cultural tradition. It makes no sense for Jesus to kill a bush for growing in the wrong season.
As an aside, the latter POV, I believe, is reminiscent of the medieval Islamic Mu'tazili, where it was argued that much of the Qur'an was written for a specific culture in specific circumstances; and, as such, modern truth to be derived from scriptures had to be ascertained through reason and philosophy, particularly that of ancient Greek philosophy and Aristotle, which they had rediscovered.
In relation to your first point, Christian scholastics, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas, imported many of these philosophical ideas via Islamic Spain, hence developing the dominant theology of Roman Catholicism for the last 800+ years, Thomism. And I believe it is this mindset which is why Catholicism, unlike many Protestant sects, very clearly states that they do not believe in Biblical fundamentalism. Moral teachings and the Bible are guided by the tradition of the church, which is formed by the hierarchy, which is formed through, in their words, "reason." I do think, however, that secular "reason" and theological "reason" are not operating on the same definition, which is likely why many of us are driven mad by trying to figure out where much of their logic originated from.
But that would make sense, really, since Thomism, 800 years ago, is really the last time that the secular world and the theological world shared the same philosophy. Since then, it's been a case of divergent evolution, with secularism going the way of Western philosophy and the scientific method, and theology going in a radically different direction. We may share some of the same vocabulary, like "reason," but how such things as reason and logic are derived have changed dramatically over the centuries. And now, by the 21st century, we're seeing the gulf reach a kind of "critical mass"; the "theocons" and the secularists now can barely even agree on a common language for discourse, let alone reconcile.
In terms of "absolute truth," I read an explanation I found quite satisfying. It is true that things we once thought were "absolutely true" have turned out to be wrong, due to new understandings and knowledge. As such, there is a temptation to claim that absolute truth is a fiction and can never be attained, so it isn't even worth trying. On the other hand, the quest for what is "absolutely true" is still worth pursuing, in the sense that once it is discovered, it will have been "true" all along and in history. It may seem like a fool's errand to some, but the progress of civilization and the future is built upon the foundation of our ancestors and, likewise, the civilization of our descendants and the knowledge that they will pursue will be built upon what we choose to pursue. We will not get everything right, and it is certainly possible that, in A.D. 2808, people will laugh at us as much as one can laugh at many of the conclusions that Aquinas came to in his medieval understanding of "natural law." Nonetheless, Western philosophy and modernism itself was built on these foundations, and, as such, could not have existed without it. If we want to dream for a better future, then we have to do our part to create it. "The End of History"? Hardly.
