Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Sunday, May 17, 2026 - 20:42 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

Sacrifice For The Sinners (Theological)


Just a doctor in throwback casual wear administering succor
[N.B. The red vs. blue button dilemma to be addressed soon.]
(Original source: straitstimes.com [with some help from GPT-5.5])


To adequately explain the precursors and consequences of the just-concluded Sino-U.S. Summit of Emperors, it may be necessary to recount a story - The Greatest Story Ever Told.

It is also the story of a man.

Later known as the King of Kings, he was of humble birth, only to later arise in triumph. When he first began his campaign, he was condemned by polite society, and even called a madman by those who, of course, did not know any better. Undeterred, he proceeded to perform miracles, repeatedly succeeding where the rational mind accorded no hope. The establishment feared him and his (social) Truth, and conspired to eliminate him.

At a supper (or a dinner), he would be betrayed whilst at a long table - but his time was not done yet, and he forgave them. Days before, he had been engaged in a matter of oil, and been criticized for not considering the poor instead. To this, he justifiably answered that the world would always have the poor, but they would not always have him (or his premarket announcements, which had these fellows diligently followed, they would be poor no longer), and the price was of no object.

They then arrested him, and held a rigged trial, and they were angry at his supposed presentation of himself as the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One; his reply was characteristically elegant: "You have said so; You say that I am". Certainly, he said nothing of that sort himself - he merely presented himself in a plain white tunic the sort of which the meanest of peasants could wear, under a simple red cloak of no special distinction. Only his accusers, then, need explain what they saw in that.


He (maybe) worked with (plant-based) chips in his daily labours
(Sources: nypost.com)


But the establishment cared not for such, and despite him being eventually discharged ("I have not found this man guilty"), they would hail him as a King, bequeath upon him a crown of thorns, and mock his greatness with a four-letter acronym. Many of his former friends and allies would deny him, but he had expected that too. Before accepting his fate, he healed a wounded right ear immaculately, and while they thought him dead for a short time, he would instead rise again in glory. Mercy, as it happened, had not yet abandoned this undeserving world.

Some readers may, at this point, be miffed at this presentation - if so, do please stay your wrath, sirs - we shall provide justification, in terms both theological and temporal.

First, the theological. This happens to relate deeply to the viral Red Button versus Blue Button question (itself a subset of the universal Red vs. Blue trope) that has recently gained much popularity on the interwebs, and which goes as follows: Everybody on Earth has to press either a Red button or a Blue button (as enforced by aliens, the Almighty, or whatever power one prefers), under the following conditions: If a majority press the Blue button, everybody survives (whatever button they press). However, if the Blue button is not pressed by the majority, then only those who press the Red button survive.

Dear reader: What button would you press?

There have been many quite-complete analyses of the problem, and there is little disagreement about the basic formulation in game theory terms, which goes as follows:


The pro-life choice appears rather obvious
(Source: medium.com)


The safe choice for the individual is, obviously, the Red button. This ensures that he survives, no matter what the rest of the world chooses. Those that press the Blue button survive if and only if at least half of the others did as they did. Otherwise, they all perish, with only those that pressed the Red button living on.

Despite the strictly-dominant* choice being the Red button (as picked by three out of four discerning LLMs), there has been considerable support for the Blue button, generally from the logic that there will be many people who, for reasons of youth, mental incompetence or otherwise, who will press the Blue button - very likely in the millions, on the global scale. To save them, then, one should also press the Blue button, and hope that enough people think the same way.

The rejoinder from those that favoured the Red button has been that they are not necessarily being selfish, because everybody has the choice to also press the Red button. Their guaranteeing their own survival does not prevent anyone else from achieving it. The choice of button is wholly one of free choice, and people should bear their own consequences for it.


This is not an inaccurate perspective either
(Source: buzzfeed.com)


Before getting to the main point, it might be noted that various large polls run by influencers and such have tended to have the Blue button win out, by anywhere from about 56% to 74%. That said, it should be recognized that all these polls had been held under purely hypothetical conditions; nobody was actually going to die, whatever the result. Given this, a slightly-cynical interpretation would have "You Live, Nobody Dies" in all four boxes of the game theory matrix above, with an additional "You Get Recognized As An Asshole" for the Red button column. Under this framing, it might be understood as to why Blue may have an advantage compared to if the test were held for real (as in Squid Game). Further, this raises the (less-explored) question as to one's choice were the threshold for the Blue button be raised, say to 80% (which would doom the Blue Team in all major polls thus seen). Would this affect one's assessment of human nature, and eventual colour chosen?

At this, some might bemoan there being no way to really judge humanity... but what if there is?

For this, we have to return to the Man, that King of Kings, and sometime McDonald's drive-thru Servant of Servants. In some of his incarnations, He promised (everlasting) life to those that chose His button, and a fate worse than death if they denied Him (by choosing the other button). Against that, some have suggested that they would not accept such an outcome, for an eternal punishment for a finite sin would be manifestly unjust. They would risk persecution - and quite possibly death, in past-gone times - to try and keep such iniquity from being visited.

The problem then becomes:


The mapping may not be that obvious
(i.e. His choice of button actually appears to be Red.)


Or: once there are some stakes, a heck of a lot of people will go for the Red button.

This is not being disingenuous, by the way; death was indeed a common penalty for not believing, or even simply holding a (slightly) different version of the faith, such as with the Protestant Oxford Martyrs - and to be fair, it also goes the other direction, and for any combination of denomination or creed. The current crisis in the Holy Land for instance involves nations of two Abrahamic religions against a third, as it has been for most of its recorded history. One can peel through a multitude of wrongs committed by one or other of the parties on one another, past centuries and millennia of eyes for an eye, until one stands before a man in an ancient field, who has the blood of his brother still fresh on his hands; and at this deplorable sight, one might only turn one's face to the sky, and implore: "Sir, perhaps thou might consider the Food and Drug Administration's latest recommendations on the acceptance of fruit and vegetables as a necessary component of a healthy and sustainable diet?"

And if this is how they treat their brothers of the same Father - or at a minimum, close cousins - then why should one be particularly eager to break bread with them?

Maybe, one day, some may have cause to be relieved that at least a few did not agree to that, after all...


[*In the colloquial sense of strict; technically, the Red button is weakly dominant taking the Blue majority case into account.]

[To be continued...]



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Sacrifice For The Sinners (Temporal, I)


Related Posts:
Déjà Vu
Ghosts of Games Past
The Unbearable Lightness Of Gas
Pokémon Or Drug?
Game Status Update II
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2026 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.