The Town of Odyssey

Found this today.

That is a really good video. So true and sincere.

I agree he's very sincere and I agree with several things he said but his message is very confusing; at one point he says he loves the Church but what is the Church if not religion? The definition of religion is unclear, if the definition is being hypocritical legalistic people then yes religion is bad. But if as in his poem it is man searching for God then it is not. Religion is a relationship with Christ, a communal, universal one, that breaks all bounds of time and space.

Final note, a bishop in my church actually posted this on Facebook and in the comment section this was said by someone else.

so much zeal
so much immaturity
a hip lingo and a leather jacket
the facade-of-no-facade is not the mark of purity

I agree with Ayn. James 1:27 says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Obviously, Christianity is still distinguished as a "religion" in James' eyes. Religion isn't an anti-biblical concept. Only when the basis of a religion is "Man trying to reach God," rather than "God reaching Man," is it unbiblical. We aren't following a set of restrictions and quid pro quo, trying to please God. We can't please God (Romans 8), so He has to take the initiative and reach out to us. That's the Christian "religion".

Wow this is good

Religion says do, Jesus says DONE.

The message he's trying to get across is a great one, but I also felt like he was almost slamming the church. Christianity can be counted as 'religion', but it's not JUST religion, like so many others. It's the one that says 'look what GOD did' and not 'look what YOU need to do'. Church is good, the body is good, it's just that when it gets to be a performance, we have some serious problems.

Christ's specific work on the cross was done when He said that but the work of His Church was not, St. Paul in his letter to the Philippians says "Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." It seems to me that there are things to do.

But I think this video really falls apart when we look at James 1:26-27 like Christian said, we are to practice a religion before God that will be accepted pure and faultless. I agree this video points out many of the negative things that come of being hypocritical but true religion isn't defined by the hypocrites.

Ayn Rand wrote:Christ's specific work on the cross was done when He said that but the work of His Church was not, St. Paul in his letter to the Philippians says "Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me." It seems to me that there are things to do.

Christina? I think you mean Christian.

That's a good point. I really do like the video, if it didn't put religion as black and white.

Christian A. wrote:Only when the basis of a religion is "Man trying to reach God," rather than "God reaching Man," is it unbiblical.

I would have to slightly disagree there, the reason God became man was so that man could become God, we also have disagreed in other threads about free will versus predestination and I think the author of this poem is going from a very predestination viewpoint.

Also to slightly expand on a point I made earlier the author wrote God said done while the Church says do. Where does He say done? On the cross? Well then what about the Resurrection? After the Resurrection? In the Great Commission He says go out into all the world, sounds awfully like a do to me. Christ also repeatedly says do, do this in remembrance of me, do this whenever you pray.

Ayn Rand wrote:

Christian A. wrote:Only when the basis of a religion is "Man trying to reach God," rather than "God reaching Man," is it unbiblical.

I would have to slightly disagree there, the reason God became man was so that man could become God, we also have disagreed in other threads about free will versus predestination and I think the author of this poem is going from a very predestination viewpoint.

Man can't become God, based on definitions of God and man. God sent His Son to earth so man could have fellowship with Him again.

Ayn Rand wrote:

Christian A. wrote:Only when the basis of a religion is "Man trying to reach God," rather than "God reaching Man," is it unbiblical.

I would have to slightly disagree there, the reason God became man was so that man could become God,

What do you mean by this? Surely you don't have the Mormon belief that man eventually becomes God? Were you trying to say something else?

I think the guy's point is something like the point made in this song: "Something to Believe In" by FM Static. It's a Christian song, but it's from the perspective of a teenager trying to find absolute truth. He seems frustrated with the church of today: "Keep your religion, don't need your lies. I'm just looking for one good reason!" And in the bridge he says, "I don't want to spend my lifetime figuring out that I could have just said one prayer...that I missed the point, now it's over."

The modern church does treat Christianity as a religion: Say this prayer, accept Jesus into your heart, and God will give you eternal life. There is truth in that, to some extent, but we tend to focus on the human side of it (repenting and believing) than the divine side of it (Jesus' propitiation for our sins on the Cross). We focus on what we should do, rather than what's been done.

The song "You Are More" by Tenth Avenue North captures this message, I think with the lyrics, "You are more than the choices that you've made...than the sum of your past mistakes...than the problems you create....This is not about what you've done, but what's been done for you. This is not about where you've been, but where your brokenness brings you to. This is not about what you feel, but what He felt to forgive you, and what He felt to make you new." That's true religion: Jesus felt the wrath of God on our behalf, in order that we could be forgiven. And now we can be accepted by God, because of His righteousness being applied to us.

No I don't mean like the Mormons do, I mean like C.S. Lewis said

C.S. Lewis wrote:The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

We will become a perfect mirror reflecting perfectly God. This is the doctrine of Theosis.

That's true religion: Jesus felt the wrath of God on our behalf, in order that we could be forgiven. And now we can be accepted by God, because of His righteousness being applied to us.

Couldn't disagree more, true religion is about a continual ongoing process of sanctification by the means of grace, i.e. the sacraments, that brings us continually closer to God. I agree a lot of people focus on our part more than God's part but we shouldn't negate our part.

I am annoyed when Christians get all hyped up on "ITS NOT A RELIGION, ITS A RELATIONSHIP!!!" because yeah, it is technically a religion. >_> The relationship terminology wasn't even invented until there was a broader appeal push to women where all our awesome hymn lyrics were traded for a lot of romance songs that say "Jesus" instead of "baby" or something. >_>

Ayn Rand wrote:We will become a perfect mirror reflecting perfectly God. This is the doctrine of Theosis.

I've never heard the name of that particular doctrine, but I think I agree with it for the most part. But I think Lewis's language of "gods" and "goddesses" was a little weird. "God" has always been a term used to refer to someone that is worshipped. When we are in Heaven, we will not be worshipped, but worshippers of Christ.

Ayn Rand wrote:Couldn't disagree more, true religion is about a continual ongoing process of sanctification by the means of grace, i.e. the sacraments, that brings us continually closer to God. I agree a lot of people focus on our part more than God's part but we shouldn't negate our part.

Sanctification is certainly a part of the Christian religion, but it is not the basis. Christ's death and resurrection is the basis. His work is what allowed for our sanctification. He did it all. Thus, we aren't even ultimately responsible for that. I do think that believers work out their salvation in sanctification, but that's all after the work of Christ. If we put any emphasis on our part, as if we have the ability to add something to our salvation, then some of the glory for our salvation becomes ours, rather than all the glory going to God.

So I disagree with you, but this isn't the CCDS, so unless someone moves the thread, we shouldn't elaborate any more on our disagreements.

I think the language is apt and one used by the Early Church Fathers, by Luther and Calvin, and by C.S. Lewis, not to mention many others. Yes it seems like odd language at first and takes getting used to but as I pointed out it has ample backing in any Christian tradition.

I agree Christ's work is what made our sanctification possible. Obviously we disagree on some other points after that but as you said this is not CCDS, so thank you for the discussion.

This video didn't impact me as much I expected it to. In a nutshell, Jesus > Religion, and here's a bunch of rhyming sentences that prove it. It may have been more shocking to me if I hadn't have already heard this stuff a lot. People in my circles talk about it often.

But yes, I agree with the video about 98%. It was well-made.

So what do you think about the James 1 verse that Christian posted about a religion that God accepts as pure and faultless?

Or the fact that Christ never said done but said do an awful lot?

The Top Crusader wrote:I am annoyed when Christians get all hyped up on "ITS NOT A RELIGION, ITS A RELATIONSHIP!!!" because yeah, it is technically a religion. >_> The relationship terminology wasn't even invented until there was a broader appeal push to women where all our awesome hymn lyrics were traded for a lot of romance songs that say "Jesus" instead of "baby" or something. >_>

It'd be one thing if people said it's not JUST a relationship.

Does that mean that we shouldn't refer to Jesus in a relationship because it started out as something weird? Just like we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because Christmas trees are evil?

Ayn Rand wrote:Or the fact that Christ never said done but said do an awful lot?

On the contrary, He said it is finished. Done, complete!

Finished, done, complete, except for that whole rising on the third day, staying around for 40 days after that appearing to the Apostles and Disciples and then ascending into heaven after telling us to go out into the world. Yes His work was finished on the Cross but there's a lot left for us to do, Christ never said we are done.

Ayn Rand wrote:Finished, done, complete, except for that whole rising on the third day, staying around for 40 days after that appearing to the Apostles and Disciples and then ascending into heaven after telling us to go out into the world. Yes His work was finished on the Cross but there's a lot left for us to do, Christ never said we are done.

I believe what the guy was trying to say, is that all other religions say 'do this' or 'do that' to be 'saved' or have a good 'second life', whereas Christianity is the religion where Jesus says 'It's done, I did it. You don't have to DO anything to be saved.'

Because there certainly is a LOT left on earth for us to do.

Ah, well I would disagree with that but I can see where you and he are coming from but he doesn't make that very clear.