Why or Why Not God?

[DKW 86 8,089]

I have done much research and thought on this God question.

I have a question for those that dont believe there is a God or question his existence.

If there is no God, why do good? It makes no sense to do good. Darwinism is the accepted mantra of the pseudo-intellectuals in the world. I have to ask the question then. So what if we dont do good?

If a species dies out, maybe it was meant to die out. Maybe the earth will be POSITIVELY affected by the loss of the species. Darwinism is a rule that they now want to apply only now and with man's intervention. Why? Who cares?

Onward, If Darwinisism is correct anf the fittest are supposed to win out and eliminate the weak then should we not speed the process along and help it out? This is called Neitzscheanism. We should embrace Darwinism and facilitate and encourage it when necessary for the betterment of man and the natural world.

Onward again, If Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism are acceptable, then shouldnt we as educated men then take it upon ourselves as OUR DUTY to facilitate the goals of Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism to their ultimate conclusion? This we would call Nazism.

This is a very slippery slope that has seduced many an intellectual. The onward march of the idea is as normal and consistent as time itself.

Darwinism says survival of the fittest occurs.

Neitzscheanism says survival of the fittest is a great thing and SHOULD occur.

Nazism says that actively forcing the survival of the fittest is the DUTY of MANKIND to make it occur, and at as fast a rate as can be generated.

So my frineds, back to my question: If there is no God, then doing "good," helping the poor, the uneducated, etc is really a crime against the people as a whole. The progression from Darwin to Nazism is inevitable. If you dont believe in God and the worth of every person, then why not just go for it?

[otterinbham 0]

See, I don't agree with your apparent premise that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive propositions. Or that belief in the mechanisms of Natural Selection precludes a belief in God.

[BamaGrad03 0]

See, I don't agree with your apparent premise that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive propositions. Or that belief in the mechanisms of Natural Selection precludes a belief in God.

Yes, but belief in God brings into play the moral code. Since one's natural instinct is to do the opposite of what's considered "good". I agree with you though, Evolution can exist with the belief in God. As can natural selection. I just don't believe the LEVEL of evolution has occured that is taught to us in school.

[tiger88 934]

See, I don't agree with your apparent premise that Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive propositions. Or that belief in the mechanisms of Natural Selection precludes a belief in God.

Totally agree with that thought.

How anyone can deny that evolution, to some extent at least, exists is beyond me. It is happening everyday, and I firmly believe in God. Who's to say that God could not have created a life form that evolves? Isn't that what Jesus wanted us to do mentally and spiritually? Evolve?

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think evolution exists. Things evolve. But we didn't start out as single celled organisms that morphed into things with feet, then monkeys, then humans.

[bigsixfive 341]

I think evolution exists. Things evolve. But we didn't start out as single celled organisms that morphed into things with feet, then monkeys, then humans.

That's the difference between evolution and Evolution. "evolution" happens every day in the form of adaptation. "Evolution" tells me I used to be a frog.

[tiger88 934]

I tell you, I'm not sold on the big Evolution either. However, if you watch a documentary or two on monkees or apes you have to admit there are sometimes startling similarities.

I believe that in many ways we are just like animals and technically we are animals I suppose. If we don't learn how to evolve further mentally we will probably wipe most of us of the face of the earth one day soon. After that whoever is left will be much more like monkeys than we are, lol.

[bigsixfive 341]

I tell you, I'm not sold on the big Evolution either. However, if you watch a documentary or two on monkees or apes you have to admit there are sometimes startling similarities.

I believe that in many ways we are just like animals and technically we are animals I suppose. If we don't learn how to evolve further mentally we will probably wipe most of us of the face of the earth one day soon. After that whoever is left will be much more like monkeys than we are, lol.

There are similarities between dogs and cats too, but that would never lead me to the conclusion that there was some sort of fenine or K-line creature back in the day. I understand there is evidence that supports the theory of Evolution, but there has yet to be anything to PROVE it. I don't understand why people don't react the same way when Evolution takes a serious hit when a new discovery is made as they do when some (usually very skeptical) discovery is made to support it, either. On the other hand, much of Judaism and Christianity can be factually proven, but people refuse to accept that and play it off as myth... I don't get it.

There is actually a school of thought that I came across the other day and found interesting... The human mind is actually much worse than it was than at the time of creation. Due to a sin degenerated body, the mind has actually lost power throughout history, and we'll never achieve some mental greatness. We do stand on the shoulders of everyone before us and can still be creative and innovative, but mankind's capacity for expansion is decreasing as it ages. Anyways, I found it interesting. It was in a discussion on how Cain's offspring were able to make such metalurgical, musical, and social advances in their lifetime (slight tangent - Cain's children created cities, music, and metal, which is vastly different than the history books' stories of millions of years of evolution to achieve each of those points).

[jared52 4,358]

I tell you, I'm not sold on the big Evolution either. However, if you watch a documentary or two on monkees or apes you have to admit there are sometimes startling similarities.

AHHHHH... must...avoid...evolution...thread....

Ok, I'll just interject this and go away. Why do the "startling similarities" have to be proof that we evolved from something and not be proof that they are designed by the same being? Maybe God saw that it was a good plan and copied some of it in creating man. And why don't humans have tails? Is that because one day they fell off a monkey during the process? I thought survival of the fittest was about adapting the better, stronger, faster bodies. Would a tail be awesome! How many times have you had 2 handfuls of groceries and needed to open a door? Swing that tail around and open it! If macro-evolution (the big E you guys are using) is possible, I want to grow a tail. I'm weird like that!

I believe that God created the world in seven literal (well 6 days of work, 1 of rest) days because He said He did.

[tiger88 934]

LOL! I hear you Jared.

I'm agnostic on the big E, but I can't bring myself to totally deny the possibility of it.

[tiger88 934]

I have done much research and thought on this God question.

I have a question for those that dont believe there is a God or question his existence.

If there is no God, why do good? It makes no sense to do good. Darwinism is the accepted mantra of the pseudo-intellectuals in the world. I have to ask the question then. So what if we dont do good?

If a species dies out, maybe it was meant to die out. Maybe the earth will be POSITIVELY affected by the loss of the species. Darwinism is a rule that they now want to apply only now and with man's intervention. Why? Who cares?

Onward, If Darwinisism is correct anf the fittest are supposed to win out and eliminate the weak then should we not speed the process along and help it out? This is called Neitzscheanism. We should embrace Darwinism and facilitate and encourage it when necessary for the betterment of man and the natural world.

Onward again, If Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism are acceptable, then shouldnt we as educated men then take it upon ourselves as OUR DUTY to facilitate the goals of Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism to their ultimate conclusion? This we would call Nazism.

This is a very slippery slope that has seduced many an intellectual. The onward march of the idea is as normal and consistent as time itself.

Darwinism says survival of the fittest occurs.

Neitzscheanism says survival of the fittest is a great thing and SHOULD occur.

Nazism says that actively forcing the survival of the fittest is the DUTY of MANKIND to make it occur, and at as fast a rate as can be generated.

So my frineds, back to my question: If there is no God, then doing "good," helping the poor, the uneducated, etc is really a crime against the people as a whole. The progression from Darwin to Nazism is inevitable. If you dont believe in God and the worth of every person, then why not just go for it?

To say that the progression from darwinism to naziism is inevitable is not sound at all to me. I don't buy into any of those theories as a whole and naziism is just way off.

Here's a good question though, what is the worth of every person? Obviously we don't see them all as the same or we would never bomb other countries (not an anti-war statement). To bomb another country you have to believe that the deaths of those people are for the better good of the planet/universe. I mean we're not bombing ourselves so we don't feel that we are the problem.

[otterinbham 0]

I tell you, I'm not sold on the big Evolution either. However, if you watch a documentary or two on monkees or apes you have to admit there are sometimes startling similarities.

AHHHHH... must...avoid...evolution...thread....

Ok, I'll just interject this and go away. Why do the "startling similarities" have to be proof that we evolved from something and not be proof that they are designed by the same being? Maybe God saw that it was a good plan and copied some of it in creating man. And why don't humans have tails? Is that because one day they fell off a monkey during the process? I thought survival of the fittest was about adapting the better, stronger, faster bodies. Would a tail be awesome! How many times have you had 2 handfuls of groceries and needed to open a door? Swing that tail around and open it! If macro-evolution (the big E you guys are using) is possible, I want to grow a tail. I'm weird like that!

I believe that God created the world in seven literal (well 6 days of work, 1 of rest) days because He said He did.

Seven literal days? 24-hour days? Or, as St. Augustine and a number of other eminent church theologians argue, allegorical days?

After all, there's scriptural support for this notion. For example, we know that in Psalm 90:4 that what is a millenium to us is but a blink of an eye to God. Actually, 2 Peter 3:8 says exactly the same thing. So really when you say that it's a literal human day, you may be trying to define God in human terms.

[jared52 4,358]

Seven literal days? 24-hour days? Or, as St. Augustine and a number of other eminent church theologians argue, allegorical days?

After all, there's scriptural support for this notion. For example, we know that in Psalm 90:4 that what is a millenium to us is but a blink of an eye to God. Actually, 2 Peter 3:8 says exactly the same thing. So really when you say that it's a literal human day, you may be trying to define God in human terms.

Yes, literal, 24-hour days. Psalms says a thousand years is as a day, but that doesn't mean when God said one day he really meant 1000. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion so He doesn't say one thing and mean another.

BTW, I consider this a non-issue really. It means nothing in the spance of eternity. You don't got to Hell if you believe in evolution or creation.

P.S. I really shouldn't come back! I think it's a secondary issue, but I have spent a lot of tine studying it, so I feel compelled almost to defend it. That's why I should stay away! I'll just lurk for the duration of this thread.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, I'm a devout Christian, but I'm not a Bibliophile. For even in the account of Creation, there are substantial and important contradictions that really confound a literalist viewpoint:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

What's more, there are really two different traditions at work in the creation story, the two of which contradict one another:

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light

Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky

Day 3: Plants

Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)

Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)

Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)

Day 7: Nothing

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)

Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)

Plants

Animals

Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

So within a few scant lines of one another in Genesis, there are two completely different accounts of creation.

[FootballFanatic 4]

I have done much research and thought on this God question.

I have a question for those that dont believe there is a God or question his existence.

If there is no God, why do good? It makes no sense to do good. Darwinism is the accepted mantra of the pseudo-intellectuals in the world. I have to ask the question then. So what if we dont do good?

If a species dies out, maybe it was meant to die out. Maybe the earth will be POSITIVELY affected by the loss of the species. Darwinism is a rule that they now want to apply only now and with man's intervention. Why? Who cares?

Onward, If Darwinisism is correct anf the fittest are supposed to win out and eliminate the weak then should we not speed the process along and help it out? This is called Neitzscheanism. We should embrace Darwinism and facilitate and encourage it when necessary for the betterment of man and the natural world.

Onward again, If Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism are acceptable, then shouldnt we as educated men then take it upon ourselves as OUR DUTY to facilitate the goals of Darwinisism-Neitzscheanism to their ultimate conclusion? This we would call Nazism.

This is a very slippery slope that has seduced many an intellectual. The onward march of the idea is as normal and consistent as time itself.

Darwinism says survival of the fittest occurs.

Neitzscheanism says survival of the fittest is a great thing and SHOULD occur.

Nazism says that actively forcing the survival of the fittest is the DUTY of MANKIND to make it occur, and at as fast a rate as can be generated.

So my frineds, back to my question: If there is no God, then doing "good," helping the poor, the uneducated, etc is really a crime against the people as a whole. The progression from Darwin to Nazism is inevitable. If you dont believe in God and the worth of every person, then why not just go for it?

I would disagree with you on one foundation. Humanities forward progress and survival depends on a social group to succeed. We are not functional solitary hunters. We require each other to protect and survive in our environment.

Our proclivity to make war is simply the need for one survival group to oust another. These groups are founded by any number of social influences but are at their core instinctual. Humans seek to belong to a group due to their need to join a pack and prosper. We are a herd species that uses group think and intuition to overcome problems. Without some agreed social limitations the group will never survive. The reason murder, theft, and social restrictions exist amongst humans is simply to allow the group to coexist and to do so safely and with trust.

Humans don't need religion or God to have morals, they use those as a method to explain or enforce those morals within their social grouping.

No matter what religion, or lack there of, you are part of supplies laws and moral purpose to exist within a group. You do so to survive the harsh world around you purely by instinct. Its how humans survived their infancy and if you believe in The Origin of The Species by Darwin you would say its how we made our way from primate to man of today. If you believe in Intelligent Design then its how man was programed by God to survive the world he placed us in. If you believe in the Bible as a literal source its a bit less descriptive since Theological Christian Origin is to simple and vague to really work out into a solid scientific theory.

Basically my point is that Morals are a basis of instinct that allows a culture to coexist. They may not match from culture to culture (like the real world) but within each culture there are moral grounds that everyone sees and attempts to follow. Its our nature to coexist and to follow the societies rules. Those who stand outside those beliefs are often shunned or killed to save the remainder of the social group.

Morals from culture to culture are simply a process of instinct. Preservation of life is simply the groups method of survival.

[jared52 4,358]

Well, I'm a devout Christian, but I'm not a Bibliophile. For even in the account of Creation, there are substantial and important contradictions that really confound a literalist viewpoint:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

What's more, there are really two different traditions at work in the creation story, the two of which contradict one another:

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light

Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky

Day 3: Plants

Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)

Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)

Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)

Day 7: Nothing

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)

Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)

Plants

Animals

Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

So within a few scant lines of one another in Genesis, there are two completely different accounts of creation.

Arg... ok, I'm back in I guess.

This isn't my work, I'll quote the author:

Supposed Contradiction # 1:

1. Gen. 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man;

Gen. 2:8 has the trees made on day 6 after man.

2. Gen. 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day 5;

Gen. 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day 6.

3. Gen. 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man;

Gen. 2:19 has the animals made on day 6 after man

Explanation of supposed contradiction:

1. Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.

2. Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.

3. Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

[otterinbham 0]

But wait...

First of all, the author of Genesis, Chapter 1 was quite explicit in his use of detail, so further commentary is not really needed.

Now, let's move on to Genesis 2:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

So Genesis 2 has far less detail than Genesis 1, so there goes that explanation. Also, Genesis 2 clearly says that there was no plant life. Just barren earth. This is completely at odds with Genesis 1:11.

God creates Adam, and then creates a garden in which he would dwell, not vice versa. So if you really take a literalist viewpoint, then you should really be bothered that the events described in Genesis 2 clearly contradict Genesis 1.

[jared52 4,358]

This is why I avoid these threads! Let's agree to disagree.

[bigsixfive 341]

Here's a good question though, what is the worth of every person? Obviously we don't see them all as the same or we would never bomb other countries (not an anti-war statement). To bomb another country you have to believe that the deaths of those people are for the better good of the planet/universe. I mean we're not bombing ourselves so we don't feel that we are the problem.

That's a whole topic onto itself. I've actually discussed this with my preacher at one point in time because a possible career path would have me creating things of this nature for the military. There are two ways I view this scenario, and I could be wrong as all get out, but here it goes.... It was the will of God to have those people die at that time in that manner. Or, if it was not the will of God, God will bring good out of all evil. Its not our place to argue, because it is impossible for us to see the entire picture with our finite minds. The Lord may have passed judgement on some, relieved some, or will bring some good out of a tragedy - which may or may not be in our lifetime.

[otterinbham 0]

This is why I avoid these threads! Let's agree to disagree.

True. There's really no convincing one another.

However, the entire point of the original thread was that Darwinism automatically led to Nazism, which I felt was a sweeping statement uncharacteristic of DKW. After all, Christianity has a pretty awful track record for butchery itself.

[DKW 86 8,089]

This is why I avoid these threads! Let's agree to disagree.

True. There's really no convincing one another.

However, the entire point of the original thread was that Darwinism automatically led to Nazism, which I felt was a sweeping statement uncharacteristic of DKW. After all, Christianity has a pretty awful track record for butchery itself.

No Otter, I was just stirring the pot and no one bought it. Bravo to all of you.

The real question here was "WHY DO GOOD?" If you dont believe in God, why bother?

[otterinbham 0]

This is why I avoid these threads! Let's agree to disagree.

True. There's really no convincing one another.

However, the entire point of the original thread was that Darwinism automatically led to Nazism, which I felt was a sweeping statement uncharacteristic of DKW. After all, Christianity has a pretty awful track record for butchery itself.

No Otter, I was just stirring the pot and no one bought it. Bravo to all of you.

The real question here was "WHY DO GOOD?" If you dont believe in God, why bother?

LOL...hoping for a cage match between the Episcopalians and the Baptists?

[tiger88 934]

Here's a good question though, what is the worth of every person? Obviously we don't see them all as the same or we would never bomb other countries (not an anti-war statement). To bomb another country you have to believe that the deaths of those people are for the better good of the planet/universe. I mean we're not bombing ourselves so we don't feel that we are the problem.

That's a whole topic onto itself. I've actually discussed this with my preacher at one point in time because a possible career path would have me creating things of this nature for the military. There are two ways I view this scenario, and I could be wrong as all get out, but here it goes.... It was the will of God to have those people die at that time in that manner. Or, if it was not the will of God, God will bring good out of all evil. Its not our place to argue, because it is impossible for us to see the entire picture with our finite minds. The Lord may have passed judgement on some, relieved some, or will bring some good out of a tragedy - which may or may not be in our lifetime.

I believe that war or killing is sometimes necessary and this is a positive way to look at that scenario. Eventually, one way or the other, it will all balance out for the good. History has shown what can happen when madmen are allowed to run wild.

The only way God can play a role in it though is for the ego not to.

[TexasTiger 15,436]

This is why I avoid these threads! Let's agree to disagree.

True. There's really no convincing one another.

However, the entire point of the original thread was that Darwinism automatically led to Nazism, which I felt was a sweeping statement uncharacteristic of DKW. After all, Christianity has a pretty awful track record for butchery itself.

No Otter, I was just stirring the pot and no one bought it. Bravo to all of you.

The real question here was "WHY DO GOOD?" If you dont believe in God, why bother?

Agnostics and atheists "do good" all the time. Doing good tends to feel good. As social beings, building relationships based on trust is adaptive behavior that promotes well being.

[AUslug 1]

I tell you, I'm not sold on the big Evolution either. However, if you watch a documentary or two on monkees or apes you have to admit there are sometimes startling similarities.

I believe that in many ways we are just like animals and technically we are animals I suppose. If we don't learn how to evolve further mentally we will probably wipe most of us of the face of the earth one day soon. After that whoever is left will be much more like monkeys than we are, lol.

There are similarities between dogs and cats too, but that would never lead me to the conclusion that there was some sort of fenine or K-line creature back in the day. I understand there is evidence that supports the theory of Evolution, but there has yet to be anything to PROVE it. I don't understand why people don't react the same way when Evolution takes a serious hit when a new discovery is made as they do when some (usually very skeptical) discovery is made to support it, either. On the other hand, much of Judaism and Christianity can be factually proven, but people refuse to accept that and play it off as myth... I don't get it.

There is actually a school of thought that I came across the other day and found interesting... The human mind is actually much worse than it was than at the time of creation. Due to a sin degenerated body, the mind has actually lost power throughout history, and we'll never achieve some mental greatness. We do stand on the shoulders of everyone before us and can still be creative and innovative, but mankind's capacity for expansion is decreasing as it ages. Anyways, I found it interesting. It was in a discussion on how Cain's offspring were able to make such metalurgical, musical, and social advances in their lifetime (slight tangent - Cain's children created cities, music, and metal, which is vastly different than the history books' stories of millions of years of evolution to achieve each of those points).

That doesn't make sense at all to me. The human mind has weakened over thousands of years due to sin? On what basis did they make that other than a reference to Cain's children.