"The characterization is thin, with most characters having one trait, continually referred to in order to tell them apart"

That sums up Jordan. Exaggerating the depth of his prose and exalting him beyond belief is not something I'm going to engage in. I disagree, and strongly, with everything you've been writing. Jordan is crap. Jordan is a diversion. There is more depth to a kiddie pool than to Jordan. Sanderson may change that - indeed, I think he already HAS changed it to a certain degree - but it doesn't change reality. Wax poetic about parallels, allusions, allegories and analogies all you want but you're still grasping at straws.

My opinion on this won't change, and I am thankful that most of the thinking world shares that opinion.

Furthermore, your use of Wikipedia is woefully inadequate for an in-depth discussion of antiquity. For the record, Wikipedia is NOT my source for information on these subjects. Let me provide you more information since you seem to rely entirely on Wikipedia:

1. Manichaeism is NOT Gnosticism. Furthermore, I did not attempt to say that Manichaeism was based on one single omnipotent god. It drew from Zoroastrianism's duality. My fundamental point about Manichaeism, which you ignored in your rush to pseudo-sources, was that the Manichaean "good" god is stronger than the evil source. Good is destined to prevail in a Manichaean world.

2. Your etymology of Lilith is wrong, and I will indeed edit Wikipedia when I have the time. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Koehler and Baumgartner, the academic standard, states the name comes from "Akk. lilu, lilitu and ardat lili, group of three storm demons < Sum. lil (Zimmern 69, AHw. 553b; Haussig Wb. 1:48, 275)". The formidable Dictionary of Deities and Demons of the Bible (the DDD), begins its entry on Lilith as follows "The Heb. term lilit as a demon in Isa 34:14 is connected by popular etymology with the word layla 'night'. But it is certainly to be considered a loan from Akk lilitu, which is ultimately derived from Sum lil." The DDD makes no reference whatsoever to any relationship between Lilith and Ishtar, except that the 3rd millennium BC epic "Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld" has her making her lair in a tree that Ishtar had planted to make a throne for herself, but which became infested with terrible demons instead. She is compared with the Lamashtu, but not with Ishtar. Black and Green's Gods, Demons and Symbols of Mesopotamia contains no reference to Lilith in their entry on Ishtar, and vice-versa. Markham Gellar's Evil Demons, a treatise on Assyrian demonology, mentions no link. Gwendolyn Leick's Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature contains no mention of a link. Samuel Noah Kramer, the doyen of Sumerian studies, mentions Lilith only in connection with her infestation of Inanna's tree in his exhaustive study Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth. Tzvi Abusch, expert on sorcery in ancient Mesopotamia, mentions no connection in either his Mesopotamian Witchcraft OR his Mesopotamian Magic. Your point about the moon in Wikipedia is a misreading of a misprint of an academic notation regarding the unrelated word itud.

4. Your point about Ba'al is farcical. It's like saying, "Well, I think he's talking about Belphegor. Just 'cause. It doesn't matter if Ba'alzamon sounds like Ba'alzephon." The name of the deity is Ba'al, and you are referring to Ba'al as worshipped by the Ammonites. It was, however, the same Ba'al worshipped on Mount Zaphon, and the same Ba'al who was worshipped in southern Cana'an and sometimes called Ba'al Zebul. Scholars are united in the assessment that Ba'al was one deity, not a variety of "different Ba'als". The name is a title, but it was a title used for the same deity everywhere.

I am weary of attempting to educate you about the ancient world. Wikipedia is a great source for popular information, but particularly with regard to antiquity it should not be relied upon. Your points would not withstand scrutiny in the academic world for one moment.