This song is COMPLETELY based on something in history that happened called the "Divine Right of Kings." It's not an anti-religion song, people just don't think deeply about aggressive songs and immediately assume that they are anti-religion. In my opinion, there is no anti-religious Meshuggah song, people just jump to this conclusion. Anyway, let's get to this "divine right of kings" thing. It was basically where monarchs (a word used in the lyrics!) claimed the "stern voice of God." They used this power because if someone disagreed with them, it was considered blasphemy and the one who disagreed could be killed for it. It was basically a move to gain a bunch of power, even though many of these monarchs were ungodly. It's just a song explaining the atrocities committed by these monarchs, "men of dominance." Because of their "divine right," they claimed their authority was given to them by God, but this was just so they aren't held accountable. for their actions.Some parts of the song could refer to government as a whole and how corrupted it can be. Notice how the song acknowledges the existence and power of God, proving that it isn't anti-religion, in this line: "Divine man. Appointed. Claiming the stern voice of God." He is claiming the voice of God, but is not God Himself. Let me know if this comment made any sense and share your thoughts with me, I'd love to have some kind of debate with someone who disagrees!
@meshuggahfan If you really think Meshuggah have never written a song that was even a little bit anti-religious please explain their songs Terminal Illusions and Nostrum.
At the very least they’re anti God.
@meshuggahfan If you really think Meshuggah have never written a song that was even a little bit anti-religious please explain their songs Terminal Illusions and Nostrum.
At the very least they’re anti God.
@meshuggahfan Like the other guy said, Terminal Illusions are pretty anti-god at the very least.
@meshuggahfan Like the other guy said, Terminal Illusions are pretty anti-god at the very least.
But look into something called Russel’s Teapot
But look into something called Russel’s Teapot
I’ll copy and paste something I wrote in a Reddit post a while back.:
I’ll copy and paste something I wrote in a Reddit post a while back.:
Behind the Sun
Behind the Sun
The analogy known as Russel’s Teapot was used by Russel commonly towards religion and god.
The analogy known as Russel’s Teapot was used by Russel commonly towards religion and god.
“He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his...
“He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.”
Basically, the burden of proof should not be put on the rejector and rather the one claiming it in the first place. Like those who claim to be appointed by god or even those to claim the existence of him.
This song is COMPLETELY based on something in history that happened called the "Divine Right of Kings." It's not an anti-religion song, people just don't think deeply about aggressive songs and immediately assume that they are anti-religion. In my opinion, there is no anti-religious Meshuggah song, people just jump to this conclusion. Anyway, let's get to this "divine right of kings" thing. It was basically where monarchs (a word used in the lyrics!) claimed the "stern voice of God." They used this power because if someone disagreed with them, it was considered blasphemy and the one who disagreed could be killed for it. It was basically a move to gain a bunch of power, even though many of these monarchs were ungodly. It's just a song explaining the atrocities committed by these monarchs, "men of dominance." Because of their "divine right," they claimed their authority was given to them by God, but this was just so they aren't held accountable. for their actions.Some parts of the song could refer to government as a whole and how corrupted it can be. Notice how the song acknowledges the existence and power of God, proving that it isn't anti-religion, in this line: "Divine man. Appointed. Claiming the stern voice of God." He is claiming the voice of God, but is not God Himself. Let me know if this comment made any sense and share your thoughts with me, I'd love to have some kind of debate with someone who disagrees!
[Edit: nHVU]
@meshuggahfan If you really think Meshuggah have never written a song that was even a little bit anti-religious please explain their songs Terminal Illusions and Nostrum. At the very least they’re anti God.
@meshuggahfan If you really think Meshuggah have never written a song that was even a little bit anti-religious please explain their songs Terminal Illusions and Nostrum. At the very least they’re anti God.
@meshuggahfan Like the other guy said, Terminal Illusions are pretty anti-god at the very least.
@meshuggahfan Like the other guy said, Terminal Illusions are pretty anti-god at the very least.
But look into something called Russel’s Teapot
But look into something called Russel’s Teapot
I’ll copy and paste something I wrote in a Reddit post a while back.:
I’ll copy and paste something I wrote in a Reddit post a while back.:
Behind the Sun
Behind the Sun
The analogy known as Russel’s Teapot was used by Russel commonly towards religion and god.
The analogy known as Russel’s Teapot was used by Russel commonly towards religion and god.
“He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his...
“He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.”
Basically, the burden of proof should not be put on the rejector and rather the one claiming it in the first place. Like those who claim to be appointed by god or even those to claim the existence of him.