Addiction By Definition

That seems to contradict what you've been saying all along. You've been drawing a false dichotomy of "rational" mind versus "animal" mind. I've been trying to point out that your rational mind often has - and SHOULD have - two or more opinions of its own.

I don't see where you've addressed this point at all.Have you heard of the Supreme Court? They can deliver a dissenting opinion along with the majority opinion. Hopefully, both opinions are rational.

That's a good thought. It may explain why God's mind could be changed from time to time in the Old Testament.

The "all-knowing" bit is mostly made up by apologists, etc. The Old Testament doesn't portray God that way.

What does a rational mind work with if not evidence?Sure, you can rationally make up a fictional story based on "fictional evidence" - but unless you can demonstrate that your "evidence" is not fictional, you can not pretend that your story is not fictional.

I think the significant factor is that the Bible often isn't read. People like Faith, for example, only memorize what they are told it says. The story of the snake "lying" and mankind "falling" is an excellent example of something that is definitely not in the Bible.Owned-but-not-read is considerably different from the way comic books are passed around to be read by many people each. I bought the Classics Illustrated comic book of Mutiny on the Bounty. I can't say I ever wanted to be Fletcher Christian (but you can probably picture me as a mutineer).

It's what the Bible says.

There is what the text says and there is what people wish it said. The apologists have an agenda. I don't.

No need to speculate. Their agenda is to promote their phony theology. The desire to promote their phony theology.If you recall, we were talking specifically about the talking snake and the "Fall". They want to whitewash the fact that the snake told the truth and God lied. They want to whitewash the fact that mankind improved because of their "disobedience" to God - i.e. they learned to think for themselves.The apologist theology has no room for a God that can be wrong - but that doesn't tally with what the Bible actually says. So they have to pretend that the Bible "means" the opposite of what it says.

I don't believe you're old enough.

As I've already said, I don't agree with the Rational Mind versus Animal Mind premise.

As I said, the "rational mind" is not always of one mind. When we "rationalize" our bad habits, it's the rational mind that's doing it, not the "animal mind".

Don't be cute. "We" means "we". We all have the same brain functions. No need. "We" already includes me. You answer that question. How can we "allow" our rational mind to "allow" something? It's because our rational mind has two different opinions: And both opinions are right. There can not be an "internal dialogue" unless there are two (or more) rational entities to hold the dialogue.Your attempt to blame bad decisions on a "Beast" is the same as saying, "the Devil made me do it." The fact is that they are decisions and decisions are rational.

No it doesn't. Both minds are rational.

But I'm not agreeing with you. I'm pointing out that the scripture you quoted agrees with me and disagrees with you.