Talk:Awesome God

Christianity: Music / Songs Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Christian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Christian songs task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bulleted list

Um, I don't remember seeing any kind of set of bulleted lists in the middle of a sentence, anywhere else on wikipedia. It kind of makes me think there is some minor attempt to evangelize here. I think we should remove it, and just put the words into a regular sentence, does anyone object?M4bwav 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The external links section contains two items, linking to lyrics and MIDI file. Both these are almost certainly copyright violations; so in accordance with WP:EL, I propose speedy deletion of the links in the next few days. (That then leaves the section empty, so I also propose deleting the section itself for the time being.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Value

Let's be honest - the song is pretty cheesey. A lot of us find this song entertaining because of the sheer camp value. Much like Tiffany or Debbie Gibson, the song has a retro appeal that isn't based on the quality of the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.103.189 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, lets be honest - the song is anything BUT cheesy. Driving home the other night from the Emergency Room at Baylor Hospital, I caught it on the radio and was brought to tears. We serve an AWESOME God and this song is HIS tribute.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.163.142 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you do not believe it's cheesy, many people on the internet believe that it is. While I respect the fundamentalist christian belief that this is a quality song, you are doing an injustice to the rest of the world by ignoring it's historical value as used in satire against fundamentalist Christianity.M4bwav (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And other people believe that it is extremely offensive and threatening. It might be worthwhile to include descriptions of how it has been received by different groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscragun (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References?

WOT says that the only reference here is unreliable, and it seems that the site is rather shady.--fetch comms 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Awesome God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708134739/http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/9804/mullins.htm to http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/9804/mullins.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]