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.