Talk:Awesome God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Songs because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProjectSongs}} template, removing the {{Stubclass}} template from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

But what about this hymn distinguishes it from the hundreds of thousands of others? Why does it rate an encyclopedia entry? Quill 02:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is one of the most popular and well known songs in certain Christian communities (perhaps in the top 20, but I don't know how to measure that). I guess this comes down to the same type of debate as whether or not we should have dozens of articles on Beatles songs. If the article did nothing but talk about the content of the song, then I would be more skeptical, but this article does mention other cultural factors. Not entirely to my satisfication, but it's a start. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone originally posted this page as pure propaganda, using just the words from the song (which is also a copyvio). This page was re-established after the prior version was deleted. I'm not sure the new version belongs in wiki either, but oh well. Nardman1 02:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not? I think we should get as much info as possible onto wikipedia. Even today this is a very a well-known song in Christian circles, so why does it not deserve a place when we have huge articles on computer games like Halo 2 ? DaveDub 06:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive Lyrics

Someone removed a reference to the fact that the lyrics are repetitive, I mean you only have to listen to the song to know that it's repetitive. The chorus line, is repeated at least 5 times at in a row multiple times ( I wouldn't be surprised if it was probably much more than that, but I didn't want to exagerate), much more than is common in even pop songs.--M4bwav 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Much of the content of this article looks like original research or requires citations. In italics:

"Awesome God" was a popular worship song in America during the late 1980s. It was written by Rich Mullins who died in a car accident in 1997, and is considered one of his best. Many Christian bands have performed "cover" versions in various styles, from ska to swing to straight rock and traditional worship style. Its lyrics are simple, clear and repetitive to emphasise its description of the nature of the Christian God (sometimes called Yahweh), however bring up points usually not used by Christians, such as "thunder in his fists" and references to the destruction of Sodom. God is alternately described as:

1. powerful

2. righteous

3. being a source of truth (described as "light")

4. strict but also merciful

5. holy, awesome, and powerful; someone that can save you from something that you cannot hide from

More obliquely, the song refers to God:

1. becoming man and being crucified

2. creating the world

3. and saving the listener

It is "biblical" insofar as its words are based in part on translations of the Bible, and it refers to assertions and descriptions there.

Some sources for this would be good. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)