Dear Chris-Vincent,

When I saw your name I was surprised a Ghanaian would write an article like this. Then I became more surprised as I kept reading the entire article until I read it all. Normally I don’t respond to articles like this but I am particularly doing so because of two things. First, because of your lack, or rather immature understanding about what Christianity is and I believe this is what made you speak so disgracefully about Christians.

The second reason I am responding to you regards your disbelief, or should I say, doubts, about God and His existence and consequently your pledging of allegiance to humanism. I don’t know what books you have read and what researches you have carried out to arrive at the conclusion(s) you currently are. But whatever they may be, perhaps you might want to research again and consider your stance about God after this little piece I’m writing. I will try to help in a little way as I am able.

So back to business. I don’t know specifically what the cause(s) of your unbelief or doubt in God and His existence so I’m going to take a more general approach to respond to you in this regard. You will have to forgive for that. Let me begin with the conclusion that Blaise Pascal, the notable Mathematician, Scientist, and philosopher, arrive at when he philosophically deliberated on the issues of God’s existence and heaven and hell. In what is now known to us as “Pascal’s Wager”, Pascal argued that it is wiser to believe in God than it is to disbelieve in Him. Pascal based his argument on probability and game theory.

READ ALSO: MY EXPERIENCE: Looking For A ‘Free Show’, Cheap Girls & A Dancing Club, Go To The Church

He argued that if one believes in God and dies and finds that there is no heaven or hell, one would have nothing to lose. Also if one believe in God and dies and finds that indeed heaven and hell are real, then he or she will have nothing to lose because his or her faith in God would earn him/her eternity in heaven just as promised in the Bible. On the other hand if one doesn’t believe in God and dies and truly there is no hell or heaven then one would have nothinBut the real trouble, as argued by Pascal, is that if one does not believe in God and dies and finds out that truly there’s heaven and hell then one would have to suffer eternity in hell for disbelieving God here on earth.

Here is a summary of Pascal’s Wager as explained above:

Believe in God         –  hell & heaven = Lose nothing (your body rots in the soil; no hell, no heaven)

Believe in God        +  hell & heaven = Great gain (you get to go to heaven for believing in God)

No Believe in God  –   hell & heaven = Lose nothing (your body rots in the soil; no hell, no heaven

No Believe in God  –   hell & heaven = Great loss (you will spend eternity in hell for disbelieving in God)

As you can see, it is more rational to believe in God than to disbelieve in Him. The essence of Pascal’s wager is that the only safe bet of unbelievers and atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and all God-haters and godless people is that of hoping there will be no hell or heaven as has been categorically stated in the Bible from Genesis to revelation.

Christians on the other hand would lose nothing if indeed there is no hell or heaven, and we will gain greatly if indeed heaven and hell are real. Besides, the hope of atheism and humanism that there’ll be no hell or heaven after has increasingly become a shaky bet owing to the fact that scientific analysis of numerous Near Death Experiences (NDEs) by medical doctors has proven that there is indeed an after-life in the form of hell and heaven as has been unequivocally stated over and over by the Bible.

I really like sarcasm and I must admit, I really enjoyed the sarcasm in your write up. Sadly though, truth is not sarcastic. It is in most occasions very ugly, not what most of us want but obviously what we need. We all need truth because truth brings Freedom. I think of you as a rational being and I hope that you will be able to rationalise and see the wisdom and truth of Pascal’s Wager.

The next thing I want to talk about is that I notice all throughout your criticism of the girls you saw at Church you seem to have a predefined way they should have dressed. In short, you were measuring the ladies conduct and comparing it with a certain Standard or Right or Moral law. You may call it whatever pleases you. I would like to talk to you more about this Standard or Moral Law and what it really is.

Once, a missionary visited a very small village in a far away country. The villagers knew not how to neither read nor write. However, upon critical observation, the missionary noticed the villagers had laws like “Do not lie, Do not kill, and do not take your neighbour’s wife” etc. This observation was a great astonishment to the missionary. The reason being that he knew the villagers could neither read nor write and there was no way they might have had a contact with the Bible to know that all of their laws that had been passed on by word-of-mouth from generation to generation was actually in the Bible.

In your opinion, and as was evident in your article, you seem to tell that the dressing of the ladies at the church you visited was wrong. As a Christian, I agree with you on that. But tell me, how did you know their dressing was wrong? As I mentioned early on, you had an idea of a Right, so all you had to do was to compare the situation (their dressing) to that idea of Right that’s somewhat in you.

Come on; let’s do something thinking at this moment:

If you consider something to be evil (wrong)0 then you must consider something as good. If you consider such a thing as good and evil then you must consider such a thing as Moral Law which helps us to differentiate between good and evil. Again, if you consider the existence of such a thing as moral law, without which we cannot tell the difference between good and evil, then you must consider such a thing as a Moral Law Giver or the Origin or Source of the moral law.

This Moral Law Giver, which is a reference to God, is the One you trying to deny in your article. But watch this: If there is no Moral Law Giver, there would have been no Moral which helps us to tell the difference between good and evil, and consequently that would have been nothing such as good or evil because there would’ve been no way for us to know if something is good or evil.

The fact that there’s good and evil, which at least, you and I can testified to, is evidence of the existence of a Moral Law which had since the beginning help humanity to distinguish between good and evil. The existence of a Moral Law is evidence of the existence of a Moral Law Giver, which is the Almighty God.

All you did in your article to bash and judge Christianity based on its abuses which (according to your article) you recorded at a single church. Please, take this from me and carry it wherever you go: you don’t judge a philosophy, concept or religion by its abuses but rather its affirmations. If you must know, atheism as a concept had caused the world more harm that you may be aware of. Between 1920 and 1953, Joseph Stalin, who was receiving training to become a priest dropped out, became an atheist and killed about 60 million people on the premise that there is no God. Then there was Adolf Hitler who was in the choir in his church but left and also killed about 11 million people. So please, if there is any philosophy that had caused the world much harm, it is obviously not Christianity but atheism and her associates like humanism.

Humanism seems a cool idea. It wants us to do good for the sake of doing good and because of rewards or punishments if we don’t. But my question is this: of what wrong is it if in addition to doing good just for the sake of it I also get to go to heaven because I believe in God and accepted the complete work of salvation done by Jesus Christ on the cross for the atonement of my sins? For instance, I believe you didn’t set up this blog for the money you could earn from ads. If I’m correct you did it because you love writing and sharing ideas. So of what wrong is it that in addition to not writing for the reward (money) but for writing sake, you also able to distribute ads that gives you money to run the blog and also for yourself?

God is so real, and this fact is even evident in your writing. As I indicated earlier, you were able to judge the ladies dressing as being indecent because of an inbuilt Standard or Moral Law within you which is also in every human being on earth. That Standard or Moral Law has its Origin or its giver which is God. So if there was no God, there would have been no way for you to know that the ladies at church were indecently dressed since no God means no moral to tell the difference between decency and indecency. God is real and He is closer to you than you think. You have treated Him continually with contempt but that does not change who He is. Believe or disbelieve in Him does not change who being (see 2 Tim 2:13).

Lastly, I want to draw your attention to something very important. You assumed perfection from the girls you saw at the church you visited. But truth is that no one is perfect. I am not commending that is okay for ladies to wear miniskirts to church. Rather, what I want to put across to you is that the church is like a rehab, a place of transformation where sinners and imperfect people who have been saved by Jesus Christ and are gradually being changed into His image – become Christ-like!

Whether a Christian or unbeliever, all human beings at fault and always dealing with a sense of guilt. There are things you have done that you are not proud of. However, the difference between the Christian and unbeliever is that the Christian serves a loving God who has the power to forgive sins and make us whole again. That is, in our pursuit to live righteously, we have a loving God who forgive our sins whenever we fall.

Fortunately, God has the same love towards you (see Romans 5:8). I have proved to you the reality of God and it is my prayer that God will also reveal himself to you. If you don’t mind, I would like you to read a book called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Louis. God bless you, brother.

From: Bob Godwyll

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

My Comment:

I am a bit busy but hope to have some time somewhere next week to respond to Bob’s article. I may not publish my response here as I do not want to dilute the focus of my blog-GhanaCelebrities.Com with such out of theme debates.

However, I will like Bob to know that, I have heard almost all the arguments he has put up BEFORE—from the popular Prof. William Lane Craig’s objective moral argument to Pascal’s ‘Nothing to Lose’ probability.

It is absurd for anyone to agree with Pascal’s probability thesis on the basis that there is nothing to lose if you decide to believe in God, compared to if you do not decide to…

Restriction of one’s lifestyle by Laws supposed to have been given by a non-existing God is something, therefore when it turns out that there is no God, a lot or something would have been lost.

What about all the money given out to God’s church? Is that not something? What about all the time that we could have used to further the human betterment that is poured into hours of unresponsive prayers to a non-existing God? Is that not something?

Most theists like you believe that evil is some sort of principle that exist in the universe-FALSE! As Richard Dawkins once explained ‘the view that evil exists may come from a personification of some principle belief…..’Check that out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eJjaSgMT4 )

Anyway, at the appropriate time, I will send out an E-mail to Bob! Meanwhile those interested in such ontological arguments should check out Christopher Hitchen’s book-God Is Not Great, Richard Dawkins-The God Delusion , Sam Harris-The End Of Faith and several others…

Thanks for your email!

READ ALSO: Refused A UK Visa? CLICK HERE FOR HELP

---

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our daily up-to-date news!!