The Rich Young Man: Love for Wealth vs. Need for Grace

I went on a trip to Johor Bahru, Malaysia with the Young Adult Ministry at my church over the last weekend. During the sermon session, my pastor preached the story about the rich man who approached Jesus, seeking guidance on how to attain eternal life. In this story, A wealthy young man approached Jesus, asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus first told him to follow the commandments, which the young man claimed he had kept all his life. Jesus then said, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” The young man became very sad and went away sorrowful because he had great wealth and was unwilling to give it up. According to my pastor, the interaction between Jesus and the rich man highlights a critical flaw in the man’s character: his deep-seated love for wealth. The pastor emphasized that the rich man’s reluctance to sell his possessions and give to the poor reveals a significant fallibility – his attachment to material wealth over spiritual devotion.

However, this viewpoint can be contrasted with another interpretation I learned from my former pastor, rooted in the Lutheran theology of distinction between Law and Gospel. According to this perspective, the real issue at hand is not merely the rich man’s love for money but rather his reliance on his ability to achieve righteousness by adhering to the commandments. When Jesus tells the man to sell everything and give to the poor, it serves as a revelation of the man’s inability to fulfill the Law perfectly and his need for divine grace.

If the story is primarily about the love of money, then virtually all Christians would fail the test, as few could truly sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. This Law and Gospel interpretation, therefore, highlights the broader and more profound theological point: the impossibility of achieving salvation through human efforts alone. The Law, as represented by Jesus’ command, reveals human shortcomings and the need for the Gospel, which offers salvation through faith in Christ.

This interpretation aligns with the disciples’ reaction, who, upon hearing Jesus’ words, asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus’ response, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible,” reinforces the message that salvation is not attainable by human efforts but through God’s grace.

While the Law and Gospel distinction provides a valuable lens through which to understand this parable, it is important not to take this perspective too far. For instance, some may argue that Jesus’ commands to love God and neighbor should be viewed solely as Law, thereby stripping these teachings of their moral and edifying impact. This extreme application could also diminish the transformative power of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes, which offer profound moral guidance and inspiration.

I've observed that Christians often tend to be judgmental towards certain characters in the Bible due to their perceived flaws. For example, in the story of the rich young man, many focus on his love of wealth as the key issue that is deserving of criticism, sometimes overlooking his sincere effort to keep the commandments. It's almost as if this one flaw disqualifies him entirely from inheriting eternal life, despite his evident commitment to following God's laws.

Perhaps a holistic way to look at it is that keeping the commandments can be seen as the basic standard for a good Christian life. However, those who aspire to a higher spiritual calling may be challenged to go further, such as selling all they have and giving to the poor, as Jesus suggested. This additional step signifies a deeper level of sacrifice and trust in God, which not everyone may be ready or called to undertake. Moreover, even not-so-good Christians or those who have strayed, like the prodigal child, can be saved through God's grace. This underscores the doctrine of Law and Gospel, where the Law reveals our shortcomings, but the Gospel offers salvation through faith, emphasizing that our flaws do not disqualify us from eternal life. By considering both aspects, we gain a more balanced understanding of the characters and the messages in these biblical stories.

In conclusion, the Law and Gospel perspective offers a sensible and useful framework for interpreting the parable of the rich man. It underscores the necessity of divine grace and the futility of attempting to achieve righteousness through our own efforts. However, it is crucial to balance this understanding with the recognition that Jesus’ teachings also provide essential moral guidance that can edify and transform our lives.

Reevaluating Chess Rules: Towards a More Human-Friendly Game

As an avid chess player, I've always enjoyed the depth and complexity of the game. However, there are a few official rules that, in my opinion, make the game less player-friendly, especially for those who simply want to play chess for enjoyment. The seriousness that often permeates the chess environment can sometimes overshadow the potential of chess as a social game that fosters community building. Here are a few rules that I believe could use some reevaluation:  

1. The Touch-Move Rule  

The touch-move rule, which dictates that if you touch a piece, you must move it, strikes me as overly punitive. There are moments when the piece you touch might not be the one you intended to move. While it's fair to say that once a piece is moved, it shouldn't be retracted, penalizing someone for merely touching a piece seems excessive. In legal terms, we talk about *locus pœnitentiæ*, a place of possible return after making a mistake. Applying this concept to chess could make the game more forgiving and enjoyable.  

I can recall my first national school school chess tournament when I was about 10 years old. I opened with the Queen's Pawn move, playing d4. My opponent responded with d5, and I intended to move my knight to c3. However, I accidentally touched my c-pawn. Realizing my mistake, I attempted to move my knight instead. My opponent immediately invoked the touch-move rule, insisting that I move the c-pawn. Reluctantly, I moved the pawn to c3, which was not an optimal move. In hindsight, the correct move would have been c4, but adhering to the rule was detrimental to my game.  

Human error is inevitable, and it's not inconceivable that someone might accidentally touch a piece. Enforcing the touch-move rule so strictly, especially in a casual or youth setting, seems unnecessary. The rule was likely intended to prevent players from casually touching pieces, but in practice, it's rare for players to do so without intent. We should question the rationale behind such a rule, and whether it still serves a valid purpose in today’s game.  

At the highest professional levels, there might be a potential for abuse if players indiscriminately touch pieces. However, applying this rule strictly at lower or more casual levels creates a harsher environment that detracts from the enjoyment and friendly nature of the game. A more sensible approach would be to allow some leniency for accidental touches, fostering a more pleasant and friendly atmosphere across all levels of play.  

2. Immediate Loss for an Illegal Move  

Another rule I find too harsh is the immediate loss for making an illegal move. For instance, if you castle through check or move a piece while under check, you lose the game instantly. This is punitive, especially when you might be in a winning position. A more reasonable approach would be to allow the player to backtrack and correct the illegal move, rather than imposing an automatic loss. Such a rule change would acknowledge the inevitability of human error without disproportionately penalizing the player.  

3. Phone Ringing Results in Immediate Loss  

Recently, I encountered a rule during a casual chess tournament that struck me as particularly unreasonable: if your phone rings or buzzes, you immediately lose the game. This was not communicated to me beforehand, and though I didn't answer the call, merely turning off the phone still resulted in my loss. While this rule might make sense in highly competitive environments, it seems excessive for more casual settings. In our age of ubiquitous phone use, such a strict rule feels unnecessarily punitive. A more sensible arrangement would be to apply this rule selectively, reserving it for serious level tournaments and allowing leniency in lower level ones.  

4. Penalizing Pre-Move Recording in Chess

When I got back into the game in recent years, I learnt that the current rule requires players to move before recording their move. This can be rather penalizing, especially considering the habits of older players who were taught to write their move first as a matter of good practice. In the past, recording the move before making it was encouraged, and for many seasoned players, this practice has become ingrained. To impose strict penalties for a habit that was once standard practice seems unnecessarily harsh. Furthermore, the rationale for this rule appears to lack solid grounding. In fact, writing the move before making it can be disadvantageous, as it reveals one's intentions to the opponent, providing them with additional time to consider their response. Therefore, the decision to record before or after making a move should be left to the player's personal preference rather than being strictly regulated. This approach would respect long-standing traditions and habits while acknowledging that the act of recording a move in advance does not inherently disrupt the game’s integrity.

Overly Punitive Rules Detract from the Game

When rules become excessively punitive, they detract from the strategic aspect of the game. Instead of focusing on strategy and gameplay, players are burdened by the fear of making minor infractions that could cost them the game. These rules interfere so heavily in the game that they can determine the outcome, regardless of the actual positions and progress on the board. This shift of focus from strategic play to rule enforcement undermines the essence of chess and diminishes the enjoyment of the game.  

For example, if a player touches a piece and then realizes their king is in check, it would be overly penalizing to force them to move that piece to a disadvantageous position, such as blocking the check with a queen, resulting in a blunder. Recognizing human error and allowing for corrective actions without imposing severe penalties would make the game more forgiving and enjoyable.

Chess is a game of strategy, intellect, and, ideally, enjoyment. By reevaluating these rules, we can make the game more accessible and enjoyable for everyone, fostering a greater sense of community and making chess a more inclusive and welcoming activity.

Trying out the Apple Vision Pro; Thoughts about the future of tech

Today, I had an exciting experience at the Apple Store in Orchard, where I got to try out the newly released Apple Vision Pro headset. Upon arrival, I had to make a booking and return after about three hours. When my turn finally came, an attendant assisted me with wearing the Vision Pro.

After the initial setup, the first thing I did was open the photo album which appeared before me on a window floating in my environment. The headset allowed me to scroll through photos by simply touching my thumb and index finger together and sliding my wrist and then releasing my fingers. To expand a photo, I looked at a particular area and performed the same finger gesture. Closing the app was just as easy with a look and touch of my fingers.

Next, I experienced a cinema-like setting. The periphery of my view darkened, simulating a real cinema environment while I watched a short clip from a Mario movie. It felt immersive, but I suggested adding virtual cinema chairs and possibly other interior decor. Having real humans, whether strangers or friends will enhance the experience further.

Following this, I explored a 360-degree environment featuring various global locations. One impressive app showcased a mixed reality dinosaur that seemed to emerge from the screen. Another section offered 180-degree movies set in diverse environments.

Overall, the headset was quite immersive, despite feeling a bit heavy. For improvement, I suggested adding more social interactive features, such as the ability to watch movies or play games with friends or strangers. The Vision Pro could also be used for virtual conferencing, allowing for mixed reality interactions with digital avatars or real people.

In terms of gestures, I recommended making them more intuitive. For example, expanding windows could be done with two hands moving apart with outstretched palms.

The virtual keyboard proved challenging to type on accurately, so integrating it with a physical keyboard might help. As technology advances, I expect improvements in battery life, processing power, and visual quality.

Overall, the Vision Pro is an impressive start with limitless potential for future enhancements.

My fascination with virtual reality began with discovering VRChat on Steam. Before VRChat, I came across IMVU, a virtual world platform that piqued my interest in digital social interactions. Initially, I saw IMVU as a way to make new friends and connect with people globally, which sparked my curiosity about the broader concept of the Metaverse.

The idea of the Metaverse captivated me because it offers a unique opportunity to interact with real people in a virtual setting. In these environments, users can communicate and interact with real humans in a virtual social world, such as playing chess or golf, and exchange contacts and social media handles after that, potentially forming real-life friendships. I have made some online friends from other countries whom I otherwise would not have gotten to know. 

Although I haven't used a VR headset to play VRChat, I did get a taste of virtual reality at a VR gaming shop previously. There, I played simple games with some friends, and while the VR visuals weren't exceptional, the experience was still enjoyable. 

My journey into virtual reality has been driven by a desire to connect with others in innovative ways. The Metaverse's potential for social interaction and immersive experiences continues to interest me, and I look forward to seeing how this technology evolves.

I foresee a world where virtual reality headsets become a common tool for people to meet and interact with others globally. As this technology becomes more widespread and advanced, the necessity for physical meetups will diminish.

However, this shift brings potential risks, such as increased surveillance by those in power. The ability to spy on individuals within virtual spaces could become a significant concern.

Despite these risks, the Metaverse will likely thrive alongside our real world. People will use it for various purposes, including social interaction, work, gaming, and shopping. This virtual realm will offer new and exciting ways to connect, collaborate, and experience life, transforming how we engage with each other and the world around us.

I'm curious about how virtual reality technology will intersect with the rapidly advancing field of artificial intelligence. In the near future, we might see AI-controlled avatars capable of lifelike human behavior. Initially, these advancements will likely be deployed within the Metaverse, where they can interact seamlessly with users.

As robotic technology progresses, these AI-controlled avatars may eventually transition into the real world. 

The evolving technologies of virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and the Metaverse raise intriguing legal questions. From data privacy to AI-controlled avatars and virtual transactions, the intersection of law with these advancements will require careful consideration to ensure ethical and effective regulation in both virtual and physical realms.

Remembering Gong Gong: A Tribute to My Maternal Grandfather, Fang Yong Sheak (方荣石)

I would like to share a belated reflection on the passing of my maternal grandfather, Fang Yong Sheak (chinese name: 方荣石) affectionately known to me and the rest of my extended family as Gong Gong. He left us on April 4th, 2020, during the height of the COVID Pandemic. I received the news while queueing outside a shop, masked up and running errands, when my dad called to inform me. It was a moment of disbelief and sorrow, made even more challenging by the lockdown in Malaysia and the Dorscon circuit breaker in Singapore at that time. Most of my maternal relatives, who reside in Malaysia, were unable to travel to Singapore to attend the funeral and pay their final respects.

Gong Gong was the second oldest among ten siblings, a man whose life was marked by hard work, practicality, and dedication. His career in education in Malaysia saw him rise from a teacher to a principal, and eventually to a director of Chinese schools in Johor. His commitment to education was so profound that three of his children followed his path and became teachers.

One of the things I admired most about Gong Gong was his incredible willpower. I remember when Grandma was diagnosed with cancer, he quit smoking cold turkey, a testament to his strength and love for her. Despite his practical nature and reluctance to discuss sentimental matters, his love for our family was undeniable. He promised Grandma who made him swear on her deathbed that he would convert to Christianity, and he honored that promise by regularly attending church with us and getting baptised.

Gong Gong had his unique quirks and tastes. He was known for his Mahathir-style olive green colored safari jackets, which he wore on almost all occasions. He loved nutritious food such as mix pig organs and was surprisingly independent, often traveling around Singapore to find his favorite food spots. Some of his favorites included the Nasi Briyani from the old Shami Banana Leaf at Northpoint and the fried seafood platter at Manhattan Fish Market Restaurant which he could eat all by himself in a single sitting.

He can be a stubborn man, refusing to use a wheelchair even when it became difficult for him to walk. His mobility gradually decreased after sustaining a fall. I remember supporting him by the hand to buy his favorite I Zhou Kan magazine, which he read for the synopsis of upcoming Taiwanese drama episodes. He was hooked on a particular Taiwanese drama called 爱, which ran for a thousand episodes on Singapore's local Chinese channel 8.

Gong Gong also had a keen interest in the stock market, meticulously monitoring prices on Teletext and later attempting to use an iPad for the same purpose after the Teletext service ended. He enjoyed Chinese oldies, especially songs by Bai Xuan, and took great pleasure in our yearly tradition of commemorating Mama’s passing and celebrating his birthday. These gatherings were always filled with visits to the cemetery and dining together at a Chinese restaurant.

One fascinating tidbit about Gong Gong is his cameo appearance in the well-known writer Anthony Burgess’s novel "Time for a Tiger" He was described as a tall and thin Chinese boy who corrected another character about the cost of transport of airplane vs train. Incidentally, Anthony Burgess was a teacher at the Malay College Kuala Kangsar in 1954. It may very well be possible that he did cross path with my grandfather who was also a teacher back then and used his name as a cameo in that early novel of his.

Gong Gong raised his five children, including my mother, with great care, ensuring they all received an education abroad. His life was a testament to hard work, love, and dedication. Despite his fear of airplanes, which prevented him from accepting a scholarship to England, he found his path in education and made a significant impact on those around him.

Though it has been four years since his passing, we continue to miss him. Gong Gong, Fang Yong Sheak, may you rest in the everlasting peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, reunited with Grandma, whom you loved so dearly. We love you and will carry your memory in our hearts always.

Rest in peace, Gong Gong. You will be deeply missed but never forgotten.

Examining Suitable Courses of Action for Law Enforcement Officers Claiming Damages from Offenders Under Tort Law

Introduction

The role of law enforcement officers, including traffic officers, inherently involves risk, particularly when they engage in pursuits of offenders attempting to evade arrest. These situations can place officers in precarious and life-threatening conditions. A recent case highlighted this issue where a LTA (Land Transport Authority) traffic officer tragically lost his life while pursuing an offender who dangerously crossed multiple lanes and a divider onto an expressway. This raises the question: under existing tort law, is there a suitable course of action for police officers or traffic officers to claim damages or compensation from offenders whose actions during evasion place the officers' lives in jeopardy?

Existing Framework: Negligence and Its Limitations

Under the pre-existing tort law, a claim for negligence requires the plaintiff to prove several elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In the context of an offender evading arrest, it seems contrived to argue that the offender owes a duty of care to the pursuing officer. Traditional negligence principles may appear inadequate for providing a mechanism for compensation in these circumstances. Proving that an offender had a duty to act reasonably towards a law enforcement officer, who is inherently involved in dangerous activities by virtue of their job, can be legally challenging and seems somewhat artificial.

The necessity of establishing a duty of care implies that the offender should consider that their actions might harm the pursuing officer. However, the very nature of evasion often involves reckless disregard for others' safety, complicating the application of negligence principles. Furthermore, causation requires a clear, direct link between the offender’s actions and the officer's injury, which may be difficult to substantiate due to the difficulty in drawing a direct causative link between the offender's action of evasion with the inherent risks involved in police pursuits.

Intentional Torts and Reckless Conduct

Another potential avenue could be the pursuit of intentional tort claims, such as assault or battery, if it can be demonstrated that the offender deliberately endangered the officer. However, proving intent in these cases is often more challenging than proving negligence. Reckless conduct, where the offender's actions show a blatant disregard for safety, could provide a middle ground, but it still demands a high standard of proof that might be impractical under the circumstances.

Need for Legal Evolution: A Specialized Tort for Law Enforcement

Given these challenges, it might be worth considering the development of a specialized statutory tort that addresses the unique risks faced by law enforcement officers during pursuits or in the course of duty. Such a tort could streamline the process of claiming compensation by recognizing the inherent duty offenders have to avoid endangering officers during evasion attempts. This new category of tort could be akin to strict liability, where proving the offender's intent or negligence is less burdensome.

This specialized tort could include the following elements:

1. Duty of Safety During Evasion: Establishing that offenders owe a heightened duty of care to law enforcement officers during evasion.
2. Presumption of Risk: Recognizing the inherent risks officers face, allowing for a presumption that any egregious attempt to evade arrest inherently breaches this duty.
3. Simplified Causation: Allowing causation to be inferred from the nature of the evasion, particularly when it involves reckless or dangerous maneuvers.

Conclusion

The tragic loss of a traffic officer during the pursuit of an offender underscores the possible inadequacies of the current tort law framework in addressing these unique situations. While negligence and intentional torts offer some avenues for claims, they require complex and often impractical proofs of duty and causation. The development of a specialized tort tailored to the needs of law enforcement officers could provide a more suitable and just mechanism for compensation, recognizing the inherent dangers these officers face in their line of duty. This evolution in tort law would ensure that offenders are held accountable for the risks they impose on pursuing officers, providing a clearer and fairer pathway for restitution.

Sunday School and King Solomon

Today was a fulfilling and eventful Sunday. My day started with attending church, where I had the privilege of leading the Sunday school session. I had nine children in my class, and our focus was on the story of King Solomon and his request for wisdom from God.

To make the lesson interactive, I handed each child a piece of paper and asked them to write down what they would wish for if God appeared in their dream and offered to grant them one wish. The responses were diverse and telling of each child's personality and desires. One child wished for a pet rabbit, another for a mansion, yet another for more freedom from parents, and one wished to be liked more than a classmate. There were also wishes for good school results and wealth, even from such young minds. This exercise led us into the story of King Solomon, who, when given a similar opportunity by God, chose wisdom. I explained how God was pleased with Solomon's choice, emphasizing the value of wisdom.

After the story, we moved on to a creative activity: making Father's Day cards. I played a tutorial video from YouTube, and the children followed along, crafting beautiful cards to be handed out next week.

In the afternoon, I participated in a Young Adult Ministry event, held in a function room at a condo. The event was filled with delicious food, such as fried rice, curry chicken, and prawns and we played various games starting with charades. I was in charge of teaching the game Splendor. Although I was initially rusty with the rules, I quickly got back into the groove. Despite not winning, it was great fun, and everyone seemed to enjoy learning and playing the game.

Later, I met up with a friend to visit another friend who has been facing some challenges. We spent time talking, offering support, and reconnecting. It felt good to be there for him and to strengthen our friendship through meaningful conversation.

Overall, it was a busy but rewarding day, filled with teaching, fellowship, and moments of genuine connection.

Cell group session: Genesis 4 - The Story of Cain and Abel

I attended my church cell group last Friday evening. It was a combined cell group session consisting of the people from the cell group I usually attend together with another cell group comprising of people slightly older than those in my cell group. The people in the slightly older cell group led the cell group session, which includes the opening song worship session and the bible study session.

The group was going through the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. As the story goes, Abel and Cain each brought their respective offerings to God, and God looked with favour on Abel and his offering but not on Cain and his offering.

The first discussion question for the session was “how to respond to someone who feels that God isn’t present”. I am not sure or can’t remember how this discussion question tie in with the Cain and Abel story. Perhaps it was about the way Cain was feeling, or maybe it was a separate discussion of its own altogether.

The answer that was provided on that was that we shouldn’t trust out emotions, but that we should believe and know with certainty based on reading the word of God from the bible, and gain faith from the partaking of the sacrament at Holy Communion, and to continue to go to church. A group member brought out the point that Pastors might also feel the same way at certain points in their life, but he admires that Pastors continue to be able to keep going and ministering, and we should be inspired to do the same.

The next question of the discussion was “What does it mean to say God has “found favour with someone?” The passage which was read in relation to that was Luke 1:30-31 where Mary, the mother of Jesus was told by an angel that she has found favour with God and will give conceive and give birth to Jesus. The commentary that was provided on this was that favour is unmerited grace from God. What is the reason that God found favour with Abel and his offering and not Cain and his offering? The passage referred to in relation to this question was Hebrew 11:4 – “By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.” 

Does the notion that God found favour with Abel due to his faith contradict the notion that favour is unmerited grace? A cell group member asked that question, and the discussion leader added futher commentary which he had initially intended not to go into about how there are two types of favour, one merited and the other unmerited. The merited ones include the likes of those mentioned in Psalms 147:11 where the psalmist writes, "The Lord favours those who fear Him, those who wait for His lovingkindess", Proverbs 3:3-4 where the author, presumably King Solomon states "Do not let kindness and truth leave you: bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favour and good repute in the sight of God and man", and Proverbs 8:32-35 - "Blessed is the man who listens to me [wisdom], watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favour from the Lord." The unmerited kind of favour typically involves those of the salvific kind where Jesus died on the cross to redeem us of our sins, as in Ephesians 2:5-9. So apparently, the favour that Abel received from God was of the merited kind.

The commentary that was delivered by the discussion leader from the pastor was that “we receive faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Abel believed in God and in the promise of the Messiah, so he was righteous by faith. Cain clearly did not trust in God, so we can conclude that he had rejected God’s gift of faith. Abel brought his offering in faith, knowing God would be pleased with it. Cain did not approach God in faith. Perhaps he even thought his offering would please God in and of itself. The story of Cain and Abel helps us see clearly that God desires us to trust in Him and bring our offerings in faith rather than trusting in our own works to please God.”

I brought up a point which seemed to annoy one of the older members there. I asked whether we as Christians might be too quick to pour judgment upon Cain for his shortcomings when God might not have judged Cain as harshly as we would. Just because Cain might not have offered his offering with faith or as much faith as his brother doesn’t necessarily mean he did not trust in God or rejected God’s gift of faith etc. After all, in the passage, God’s response to Cain thereafter was not one of condemnation, but a warning, or even a word of counsel to Cain to struggle against the temptation to sin. So it seems to suggest that there was a possibility that Cain could have very well stayed off the wrong path, though in retrospect and from what we know further down the story, he failed. Moreover, wouldn't the fact that Cain was angry that God had not shown favour to him or his offering suggest that he took his offering seriously, or had hoped to please God with his offering? Borrowing from my own work experience in the legal industry, I know how disappointing it can be to do my best at my work and submit it to the Boss, only to be told that I had done a slipshod job or not put in due effort into the task.

The older member said that it can be taken as given that Cain had these offending thoughts or attitudes towards God given that he killed his brother which we all know later in the story.

I said that if indeed Cain was guilty of thinking of his offering being pleasing to God in and of itself, many of us Christians would probably be guilty of such thinking too. Yet it seemed like the characterization of Cain that was being imputed to him based on the commentary of the bible study session was rather harsh as to be denunciatory of him. I could have perhaps have made my point a lot more tactfully or diplomatically, but I asked, perhaps somewhat rhetorically, whether we as Christians sometimes are overly quick to come up a whole list of crimes to indict someone for a relatively minor infraction in our perceived need to justify God’s disapproval of that person. God may very well not have judged that person as harshly as we have. In the instance of Cain, Cain might have fallen short of the required standards for making a desirable offering, but had he committed such a transgression as to be tantamount of rejecting God’s gift of faith and perhaps God altogether? I don’t think it is clear from the passage that he did, which was why God cautioned Cain that sin was crouching at his door and desired to have him, but he must rule over it. It implies that Cain had not gone too far down the road yet in his error as to be beyond salvation.

Another cell group member asked whether Cain could have been forgiven for his sin of murdering Abel? That group member felt that Cain did show remorse in what Cain said in Genesis 4:13-14 – “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” I drew parallels of this with Judas Iscariot, who in Matthew 27 expressed remorse after betraying Jesus, yet did not take the critical step of asking for forgiveness. The cell group member who had gotten annoyed with me earlier felt that there was no actual remorse or contrition on the part of Cain. He cited the passage of 2 Samuel 12 where David said “I have sinned against the Lord” as being exemplary of what a remorseful attitude that merits forgiveness entails. I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion here by asking how David’s remarks was in any way different from that of Achan's in Joshua 7:20, who despite making the same remark as David, was nevertheless stoned to death. What I am more interested in is the point that Cain showed at least remorse, which even though it may not have measured up to some required standard required for forgiveness, is nevertheless present. Shouldn't that at least count for something? A cell group member pointed out that Cain may not have been able to ask God for forgiveness then since Jesus had not yet done his salvific work on earth by dying on the cross, but could Cain have at least done some of the sacrificial rituals prescribed in the old testament to achieve the same? Perhaps he did so, but we can never know. Then again, the animal sacrificial rituals for penance of sins was probably not even existent during the time of Cain and Abel.