One of the common reasons given for rejecting the Christian God is the idea that the ability to choose between Heaven and Hell is not a real choice, but more of a semantic trick or even a con game on the part of the Divine. After all, given the choice between paradise and eternal torment, who in their right mind would choose the latter?

This presumes a rational ability on the part of Man that nearly all the evidence suggests does not exist. For example, one might as easily apply this sophisticated analysis to obesity. Given the choice between being slender and attractive and being fat and less desirable, it is obvious that no one in their right mind would choose the latter. Therefore, there are no fat people and anyone you happen to see that appears to be overweight is merely a visual hallucination or a construct of your imagination. Q.E.D.

The fact of the matter is that if there truly is a God, one’s opinion of the cosmic fairness of any such choice is completely irrelevant with regard to the fact that one has made one’s choice. Given that the Bible predicts negative material consequences to such an extent that martyrdom is a distinct possibility, it seems doubtful that an opinion of the overly obvious nature of the choice will be considered an acceptable excuse for making the wrong one.

A similar logic holds true for individuals in modern society, and, for that matter, societies themselves. How many people opposed to the coming system of total financial tracking from cradle to grave nevertheless sign their children up for a Social Security number because it saves them a bit of money on their taxes every year? Implanted digital currency is less than 10 years away – I used to wonder how it would ever be possible for St. John’s bad guys to get people to go along with something as monstrous as the Mark of the Beast.

Now, I know. Governments will offer a $1,500 credit for paying your taxes that way and so-called Christians around the globe will sign up in droves.

The saving grace of evil is that it appears to have a compulsion of some sort to announce itself. No one who read “Mein Kampf” or “What is to be Done” could have been truly surprised by the subsequent actions of either Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Lenin. George W. Bush campaigned as an anti-conservative, openly rejecting individualism, while echoing rhetoric from the likes of LBJ and FDR, then to the apparent surprise of nearly everyone in the Republican Party, began governing in a manner nearly indistinguishable from the two archliberals.

Nor should anyone be taken unaware when Hillary Clinton picks up precisely where she left off in 2008, for just the other day she was quoted by the Nation as saying:

You may remember that when my husband was president, I tried to do something about health care. Well, I still have the scars to show for it. But I haven’t given up.

No doubt she hasn’t, and yet there will be millions of Americans who will vote for her, then be shocked – truly shocked and appalled – when the transition of our mixed health-care system to a socialist one is made complete under her aegis.

The decision to choose evil is always easy, usually much easier than one would ever imagine. This is because it’s the popular choice – the one that will allow you to fit in, the one that will prevent people from pointing fingers at you and describing you in unflattering terms. But perhaps it will help some of you to keep in mind that the urge to submit to the temptation of the hive mind and go along with the herd is the very same one that once led a crowd to shout “Crucify Him!”

There is a reason the right path is described as being the difficult one. One should not be depressed when the way seems difficult – indeed, it is only when everything seems obvious, easy and socially acceptable that we should begin to question the rightness of our chosen direction.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.