![\"\"](\"https:\/\/farm4.static.flickr.com\/3453\/3196285262_2d2d9aa7b9.jpg?v=0\")
<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a>Last night\u2019s episode<\/a> of LOST tried to get us to rethink the situating of Benjamin Linus and Charles Widmore<\/a> in relation to one another and the polar opposites of good vs. evil. But it may be that both<\/em> are trying to manipulate John, and indeed it may be that the \u201cgame\u201d they are playing with one another features John as perhaps the most valuable piece on the playing board, but John is not a player in the game but merely a piece. And if so, is being the king better than being a pawn? <\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/a>Is it any wonder that thinkers have pondered the figure of Judas with such attention, or that scholars have wrestled with the interpretation of the Gospel of Judas<\/a>? How are we to make sense of a story in which the one who tries to defend Jesus\u2019 life is called Satan, and yet the one who brings about his death is \u201cdestined for destruction\u201d, one who would have been better off not being born? How can fighting destiny and assisting it both be condemned?<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
The truth is that we human beings seem to feel two needs in dire circumstances: the need to have some malevolent force to blame, one that is relatively weak and capable of being overcome; and the need to believe that a higher benevolent power is in control. And while such resonances continue to make for powerful storytelling, when it comes to real life, it is time for humans (and for our religious traditions) to begin to accept that this view of things is ultimately self-contradictory and thus unstable. If the death and resurrection of John Locke or Jesus of Nazareth are foreordained, then neither the one who tries in vain to prevent the inevitable, nor the one who maliciously brings it about, has any guilt. The answer in this case is \u201cD: It is written\u201d.<\/p>\n