[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY[/youtube]

This video is making the rounds on YouTube and Facebook.  In my stream its been shared over 25 times and has produced countless video responses on YouTube.  <a href="http://bramboniusinenglish.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/it-may-or-may-not-be-a-religion-depending-on-your-definition-pt-i/" target="_blank">Brambonius Cools</a> suggested its a matter of semantics, and shared a list of responses so far:
<blockquote>Some interesting remarks about the problems with this video are written by<a href="http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=4970"> the American Jesus</a>, <a href="http://moonchild11.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/not-a-religion-a-relationship-jeff-bethke/">Sarah Moon</a>, <a href="http://www.elizabethesther.com/2012/01/why-hating-religion-and-loving-jesus-is-impossible.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+ThreesACrowd+%28Elizabeth+Esther%29">Elisabeth Esther</a>, <a href="http://jakebelder.com/why-i-dont-like-the-gospel-vs-religion-distin">Jake Belder</a> and <a href="http://www.patrolmag.com/2012/01/12/jonathan-d-fitzgerald/lame-poetry-false-dichotomies-and-bad-theology/">Patrol Mag</a> and by<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=AJ1ROLWoUGA"> this girl on youtube</a>. I’m not going to repeat everything those people say, so they might be interesting to read too…</blockquote>
Christian Piatt wrote a response that call it a <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2012/01/hating-religion-loving-jesus-a-well-meaning-false-dichotomy/" target="_blank">well-meaning but false dichotomy</a>. He says:
<blockquote>He also claims that Jesus hated the church, and actually came to destroy religion, once and for all. I can certainly see where he would draw such conclusions, especially when Jesus quotes prophecies about the destruction of central Jewish temples, but I think he’s over-generalizing here. Though much of Jesus’ ministry was out in the streets and in homes, he hardly avoided the church. When there, he was prone to stirring things up, no doubt, but he was considered – and even called – a rabbi by many of his followers.</blockquote>
My friend <a href="http://www.facebook.com/jarrod.mckenna" target="_blank">Jarrod Saul McKenna</a> said on Facebook:
<blockquote>I dig heaps of it but find gender exclusive language difficult and distracting...</blockquote>
I get both of their responses, and think its important to say that church is not the same as religion, but churches can tend to espouse religion (at least historically). And I don't think the guy was meaning to exclude women from his prose.  The verse Jarrod is referring to requires the use of "Man" to rhyme (although, as a poet, he could have found a more inclusive phrase).

But the question remains why is it an internet sensation?  What nerve has it touched in people that it would generate 6 million hits in two days and countless responses?  What stands out to you?

What do you think?