Gaah!!! I had forgotten for a while that you are much more orthodox in belief than the Orthodox Christians. I had taken for a fact that you had taken a leave to Christianity: here I stand proven wrong. I had to take some people as an example, and since the only good atheist I know that you know for sure is Honey, so...I thought I needed a second example.

Aaaanyways, as far as I recall, there is a Void in every mention of religion, almost as much mentioned as the meaning of good and evil. Norse had the Ginningagap (which, far as I recall, is not Norse but Norwegian), Greeks had the primordial Chaos from where Gaia and Uranus emerged, and so on. In fact, if you come to think closely, the Judaic faith, and by proxy the Christian and Islamic faiths as Abrahamic faiths also believe in a Void. Well...a void filled halfway with water, but a Void nonetheless, which was ostracized and altered by the utterings of the Word of God. But, the world before Creation was empty and lifeless, save for the water: sounds like a Void to me.

Second, and perhaps something that will strike odd...there is no specific mention of the Devil after the fall of Eden as the one that does all the bad things. See, it is common Christian association that God is good and the Devil, the Instigator, is the original serpent, but when the Pharaoh was being plagued, who hardened its heart? And why? Believe it or not, it was God. Originally, and in true monotheistic fashion, God was the bringer of mercy and calamity, the one that ordered to kill as easily as to forgive. It is by later scripts that the Devil is re-introduced as the bad guy, as the one against humanity (around Job, to be precise) Granted, for all the questionable acts of God (which have their purpose, mind you), there are 7 to 77 (number not accurate) acts that sustain its position as chief good deity. But, nowhere in the Torah you can find tangible evidence of the presence of the Devil, expect via interpretation of the Word. Idols and pagan deities are perceived to be the agents of evil, but again, via interpretation. It does not change the meaning.

The Christian religion is quite odd when you think about it. It's dualistic and at the same time monotheistic. It is dualistic in the way it is interpreted (one God for good, one being that encompasses all evil, and all the aspects of the world revolve around these two), but monotheistic in the importance of the dualist beings (God is the only god recognized, and Jesus is recognized as either God incarnate, the son of God, or a combination of the two), while the Devil is perceived as flawed, inferior, and moreso, submit to God's orders (Job is the perfect example: God agrees to torture Job to challenge its faith, but it strictly determines that its soul shall not be touched; that means, he could not be killed by the Devil's acts, or otherwise). So, since there is an imbalance in power towards the good deity, it cannot be fully perceived as a dualistic religion. As well, since the Trinity cannot be perceived as deities of equal power, so does the Christian religion cannot behave as a polytheistic religion.

But, that it has all the other requisites to be considered a dualistic religion, yes it does. Just look at Mazdeism: Ahura Mazda/Ormuz and Ahriman are beings of equal power, and both are to be worshiped to prevent the fury of disobedience. And, all things that exalt the spirit are the fruits of Ormuz, while the flesh is the realm of Ahriman. Everything and it's grandmother is defined in the sight of these two.

As for the parables...Christ is using an often used tactic during the time. After all, fables were popular, but instead of using animals and personification, Christ used examples of common people. Gents, Christ was a very, very educated person, and had gift of communication: it is expected because of his formation as a teacher that he had to be literate. He was a Rabbi, and read the scrolls of the synagogues. It is evident that he used one of the simplest tools to convey a message. A deeper meaning is a resource from the Second Millenia.

Elements...why the descriptions sound so similar to the classic winds? One I recall is Boreas, which behaves like Water: cold and wet wind. Zephyros, the West Wind, was the favorable wind, and was the closest to its element (which, if I recall, is not Wind but Air (pneuma). And Notos, the South Wind, is the dry and hot desertic wind coming from the Sahara. Euros, the East Wind, is dry and cold. Not sure if I recalled them correctly, but far as I know those are the classic winds.

But yeah...give your thanks to Luther for breaking the absolute order of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if I recall that God is the god of Order (and then again, I do recall that he's a chaotic god at times. Each time I hear that God is a god of Order, I remember the chaos of Babel, sent by? Right.)

Last words...I'll respond to Sinis at close thing Saturday if not late today or tomorrow. I'd like to have some rest (sleeping 1 hour is not healthy, folks) Though, I must admit, I really like to give that fight a forward. I'm not the kind of people that back down from a challenge.