Freud: Moses created the jewish "God", was killed
Freud writes a letter to his friend giving a brief explanation of his recent book, Moses and Monotheism.
Lest anybody start whining that Freud was picking on the Jews, Freud himself was jewish. He was also an ardent egyptologist, which explains his interest in the subject of Moses and the origins of the Jewish faith, and his capability to do the research in that area.
***********************************************************
To: Lou Andreas-Salome
June 1, 1935
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
My dear Lou
... What you have heard about my last piece of work I can now explain in greater detail. it started out from the question as to what has really created the particular character of the Jew, and came to the conclusion that the Jew is the creation of the man Moses. Who was this Moses and what did he bring about? The answer to this question was given in a kind of historical novel. Moses was not a Jew, but a well-born Egyptian, a high official, a priest, perhaps a prince of the royal dynasty, and a zealous supporter of the monotheistic faith, which the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV had made the dominant religion round about 1350 BC. With the collapse of the new religion and the extinction of the 18th dynasty after the Pharaoh's death this ambitious and aspiring man had lost all his hopes and had decided to leave his fatherland and create a new nation which he proposed to bring up in the imposing religion of his master. He resorted to the Semitic tribe which had been dwelling in the land since Hyksos period, placed himself at their head, led them out of bondage into freedom, gave them the spiritualized religion of Aten and as an expression of consecration as well as a means of setting them apart introduced circumcision, which was a native custom among the Egyptians and only among them. What the Jews later boasted of their God Jahve, that he had made them his Chosen People and delivered them from Egypt, was literally true- but of Moses. By this act of choice and the gift of the new religion he created the Jew.
These Jews were as little able to tolerate the exacting faith of the religion of Aten as the Egyptians before them. A non-Jewish scholar, Sellin, has shown that Moses was probably killed a few decades later in a popular uprising and his teachings abandoned. It seems certain that the tribe which returned from Egypt later united with other kindred tribes which dwelt in the land of Midian (between Palestine and the west coast of Arabia) and which had adopted the worship of a volcano god living on Mount Sinai. This primitive god Jahve became the national god of the Jewish people. But the religion of Moses had not been extinguished. A dim memory of it and its founder had remained. Tradition fused the god of Moses with Jahve, ascribed to him the deliverance from Egypt and identified Moses with priests of Jahve from Midian, who had introduced the worship of this latter god into Israel.
In reality Moses had never heard of the name Jahve, and the Jews had never passed through the Red Sea, nor had they been at Sinai. Jahve had to pay dearly for having thus usurped the god of Moses. The older god was always at his back, and in the course of six to eight centuries Jahve had been changed into the likeness of the god of Moses. As a half-extinguished tradition the religion of Moses had finally triumphed. This process is typical of the way a religion is created and was only the repitition of an earlier process. Religions owe their compulsive power to the return of the repressed; they are reawakened memories of very ancient, forgotten, highly emotional episodes of human history. I have already said this in Totem and Taboo; I express it now in the formula: the strength of religion lies not in its material, but in its historical truth.
And now you see, Lou, this formula, which holds so great a fascination for me, cannot publicly be expressed in Austria today, without bringing down upon us a state prohibition of analysis on the part of the ruling Catholic authority. And it is only this Catholicism which protects us from the Nazis. And furthermore the historical foundations of the Moses story are not solid enough to serve as a basis for these invaluable conclusions of mine. And so I remain silent. It suffices me that I myself can believe in the solution of the problem. It has pursued me throughout the whole of my life.
Forgive me, and with cordial greetings from your
Freud
Lest anybody start whining that Freud was picking on the Jews, Freud himself was jewish. He was also an ardent egyptologist, which explains his interest in the subject of Moses and the origins of the Jewish faith, and his capability to do the research in that area.
***********************************************************
To: Lou Andreas-Salome
June 1, 1935
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
My dear Lou
... What you have heard about my last piece of work I can now explain in greater detail. it started out from the question as to what has really created the particular character of the Jew, and came to the conclusion that the Jew is the creation of the man Moses. Who was this Moses and what did he bring about? The answer to this question was given in a kind of historical novel. Moses was not a Jew, but a well-born Egyptian, a high official, a priest, perhaps a prince of the royal dynasty, and a zealous supporter of the monotheistic faith, which the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV had made the dominant religion round about 1350 BC. With the collapse of the new religion and the extinction of the 18th dynasty after the Pharaoh's death this ambitious and aspiring man had lost all his hopes and had decided to leave his fatherland and create a new nation which he proposed to bring up in the imposing religion of his master. He resorted to the Semitic tribe which had been dwelling in the land since Hyksos period, placed himself at their head, led them out of bondage into freedom, gave them the spiritualized religion of Aten and as an expression of consecration as well as a means of setting them apart introduced circumcision, which was a native custom among the Egyptians and only among them. What the Jews later boasted of their God Jahve, that he had made them his Chosen People and delivered them from Egypt, was literally true- but of Moses. By this act of choice and the gift of the new religion he created the Jew.
These Jews were as little able to tolerate the exacting faith of the religion of Aten as the Egyptians before them. A non-Jewish scholar, Sellin, has shown that Moses was probably killed a few decades later in a popular uprising and his teachings abandoned. It seems certain that the tribe which returned from Egypt later united with other kindred tribes which dwelt in the land of Midian (between Palestine and the west coast of Arabia) and which had adopted the worship of a volcano god living on Mount Sinai. This primitive god Jahve became the national god of the Jewish people. But the religion of Moses had not been extinguished. A dim memory of it and its founder had remained. Tradition fused the god of Moses with Jahve, ascribed to him the deliverance from Egypt and identified Moses with priests of Jahve from Midian, who had introduced the worship of this latter god into Israel.
In reality Moses had never heard of the name Jahve, and the Jews had never passed through the Red Sea, nor had they been at Sinai. Jahve had to pay dearly for having thus usurped the god of Moses. The older god was always at his back, and in the course of six to eight centuries Jahve had been changed into the likeness of the god of Moses. As a half-extinguished tradition the religion of Moses had finally triumphed. This process is typical of the way a religion is created and was only the repitition of an earlier process. Religions owe their compulsive power to the return of the repressed; they are reawakened memories of very ancient, forgotten, highly emotional episodes of human history. I have already said this in Totem and Taboo; I express it now in the formula: the strength of religion lies not in its material, but in its historical truth.
And now you see, Lou, this formula, which holds so great a fascination for me, cannot publicly be expressed in Austria today, without bringing down upon us a state prohibition of analysis on the part of the ruling Catholic authority. And it is only this Catholicism which protects us from the Nazis. And furthermore the historical foundations of the Moses story are not solid enough to serve as a basis for these invaluable conclusions of mine. And so I remain silent. It suffices me that I myself can believe in the solution of the problem. It has pursued me throughout the whole of my life.
Forgive me, and with cordial greetings from your
Freud
0
-
I guess I'm supposed to be convinced. Then again, sometimes a pencil is just a pencil. 0 -
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it. 0 -
...You referring to Freud, as in "Sigmund Freud"? The man was a GENIUS!! Yeah right. 'Ol Sigmund seemed to have had only one "little" problem...he injected massive amounts of cocaine REGULARLY. Makes a lot of today's dopers look like woosies.
...A LOT of the scientific community has long since dissmissed most of his psycho-babble writings as "drug induced madness", for good reason.
...I'm sure being in a altered frenzied euphoric state 24/7, had no influence at all on his "thinking"...[;)]
0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.0 -
Oh wow, now I get it. A paragraph from a psychologist (whose conclusions in his own field are no longer agreed with) full of speculation and quasi-history and probably and GOD disappears in a puff of logic.
So simple, really.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?
It was a jab at Freud, who said, "Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil."0 -
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
Oh wow, now I get it. A paragraph from a psychologist (whose conclusions in his own field are no longer agreed with) full of speculation and quasi-history and probably and GOD disappears in a puff of logic.
So simple, really.
weeeell, if you need something that simple then just go and read your bible. the one about the confabulated
sorry that word's to big for you
fake volcano god named Jehova or whatever it was/is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?
It was a jab at Freud, who said, "Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil."
you sure you read it?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?
It was a jab at Freud, who said, "Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil."
you sure you read it?
Positive. Even his closing paragraph.0 -
quote:Originally posted by COLT
...You referring to Freud, as in "Sigmund Freud"?
no, "Freud" as in Ebeneezer Freud.
The man was a GENIUS!! Yeah right. 'Ol Sigmund seemed to have had only one "little" problem...he injected massive amounts of cocaine REGULARLY. Makes a lot of today's dopers look like woosies.
so that invalidates everything he ever said or did.
...A LOT of the scientific community has long since dissmissed most of his psycho-babble writings as "drug induced madness", for good reason.
ya right
...I'm sure being in a altered frenzied euphoric state 24/7, had no influence at all on his "thinking"...[;)]
you're right! the letter he wrote was really written during a drug induced craze, you should disregard whatever it looks like because it's really gibberish, you just can't tell by looking at it. so pay it no attention.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?
It was a jab at Freud, who said, "Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil."
you sure you read it?
Positive. Even his closing paragraph.
so why do you say you aren't convinced, making an oblique reference to his psychological theories?0 -
...busch...
quote:Originally posted by COLT
...You referring to Freud, as in "Sigmund Freud"?
no, "Freud" as in Ebeneezer Freud.
...smart azz.[:D] no need to have read the article, the guy was too far GONE to write ANYTHING based in fact, he, his writings are an indulgence in "time wasting". I can see you NEVER had to study this guy, that, is obvious as you know nothing about him...except for the bits and pieces you feel back up whatever you believe. I HAD to read the idiot for class, BEFORE he was dissmissed by the scientific community; I dissmissed him before his bretheren totally(98%) did, read enough of his crap and you can tell he was whacked out.
quote:The man was a GENIUS!! Yeah right. 'Ol Sigmund seemed to have had only one "little" problem...he injected massive amounts of cocaine REGULARLY. Makes a lot of today's dopers look like woosies.
so that invalidates everything he ever said or did.
...Only to me and other rational people...he's known as the "Father of Cocaine"..that, tell you anything??...[^]
quote:...A LOT of the scientific community has long since dissmissed most of his psycho-babble writings as "drug induced madness", for good reason.
ya right
...You need to get out, read/research more...that sir, is a fact...or do really just ignore all facts?
quote:...I'm sure being in a altered frenzied euphoric state 24/7, had no influence at all on his "thinking"...
you're right! the letter he wrote was really written during a drug induced craze, you should disregard whatever it looks like because it's really gibberish, you just can't tell by looking at it. so pay it no attention.
...If Freud pissed, he pissed in a drug induced state...the guy stayed up for DAY's writing his "theories" pumping himself full of cocaine; but I'm sure he was rational during these times, uh-huh.
...Picking and choosing snipets of a now known AND widely dissmissed MAJOR doper for validation of one's theories/ideas...is not too wise...as I could care less what you think about God etc...but you really do need a different "source"...Freud hasn't any cred, but I see you never delved far enough into him to find that out for yourself...or you really do just ignore facts...I'll leave your arguement to you...[;)]0 -
How painful are honest words!
But what do your arguments prove?
Do you mean to correct what I say,
and treat the words of a despairing man as wind?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
No, the basis of his conclusions is his version of history. I read it just fine.
then what does "a pencil is just a pencil" have to do with it? if anything?
It was a jab at Freud, who said, "Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil."
you sure you read it?
Positive. Even his closing paragraph.
so why do you say you aren't convinced, making an oblique reference to his psychological theories?
I am not only not convinced of his theories, but I am also not convinced of his version of history. Just because he studied Egyptology does not make his "facts" factual.
He cites "A non-Jewish scholar" like that's suppose to offer some weight to the argument. I don't care if the scholar was Jewish, Muslim or from Uranus. Moreover, when the term "probably" is used, it means that someone does not speak with authority, that they are offering an opinion based upon assumptions and guesses.
This is like my saying the Founding Fathers probably wrote the Second Amendment to give the State the right to keep and bear a militia.
He then makes baseless statements that the Jews never crossed the Red Sea nor had they been in The Sinai. He is basing this on what? Fact? Opinion? Guesswork? A drug-induced epiphany? Thoughts of wanting to have sex with his mother? Who can tell?0 -
Sellin, whom Freud mentions, found tablets in excavations dating to around 1400 BC bearing a few of the many forms of the name "Jahweh", indicating that there were some Semetic people before the Israelite conquest that worshipped Him. This is totally in findings with scripture, as no one claims that only the Israelites coming out of Egypt worshipped Yaweh. The Semetic peoples were descendents of Noah's children according to scripture, so although many fell into idolatry, it is not surprising that some still clung to their faith.
As far as Moses goes, scripture says that no one "knows his sepulchre." It is theorized that the Israelite leaders did this to prevent the Israelites, who were given to idolatry, from worshiping Moses as a god.
As far as Freud himself goes, I don't know much about his drug habbits, but I do know he was obsessed with the concept of "oedipal violence" for some reason.0 -
not only did he use cocaine in massive doses but he believed it to be the answer/cure to 90% of the psychiatric patients problems. he was right on that too I suppose? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by meunke
Sellin, whom Freud mentions, found tablets in excavations dating to around 1400 BC bearing a few of the many forms of the name "Jahweh", indicating that there were some Semetic people before the Israelite conquest that worshipped Him. This is totally in findings with scripture, as no one claims that only the Israelites coming out of Egypt worshipped Yaweh. The Semetic peoples were descendents of Noah's children according to scripture, so although many fell into idolatry, it is not surprising that some still clung to their faith.
As far as Moses goes, scripture says that no one "knows his sepulchre." It is theorized that the Israelite leaders did this to prevent the Israelites, who were given to idolatry, from worshiping Moses as a god.
As far as Freud himself goes, I don't know much about his drug habbits, but I do know he was obsessed with the concept of "oedipal violence" for some reason.
Considering that Adam had a relationship with Yahweh, it wouldn't surprise me that several other people prior to the Jews would as well. God didn't take a back seat and simply wait for Abram.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by meunke
Sellin, whom Freud mentions, found tablets in excavations dating to around 1400 BC bearing a few of the many forms of the name "Jahweh", indicating that there were some Semetic people before the Israelite conquest that worshipped Him. This is totally in findings with scripture, as no one claims that only the Israelites coming out of Egypt worshipped Yaweh. The Semetic peoples were descendents of Noah's children according to scripture, so although many fell into idolatry, it is not surprising that some still clung to their faith.
As far as Moses goes, scripture says that no one "knows his sepulchre." It is theorized that the Israelite leaders did this to prevent the Israelites, who were given to idolatry, from worshiping Moses as a god.
As far as Freud himself goes, I don't know much about his drug habbits, but I do know he was obsessed with the concept of "oedipal violence" for some reason.
Considering that Adam had a relationship with Yahweh, it wouldn't surprise me that several other people prior to the Jews would as well. God didn't take a back seat and simply wait for Abram.
Very true. I was just going back in a shorter period of time than all the way back to Adam.0 -
quote:Originally posted by meunke
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by meunke
Sellin, whom Freud mentions, found tablets in excavations dating to around 1400 BC bearing a few of the many forms of the name "Jahweh", indicating that there were some Semetic people before the Israelite conquest that worshipped Him. This is totally in findings with scripture, as no one claims that only the Israelites coming out of Egypt worshipped Yaweh. The Semetic peoples were descendents of Noah's children according to scripture, so although many fell into idolatry, it is not surprising that some still clung to their faith.
As far as Moses goes, scripture says that no one "knows his sepulchre." It is theorized that the Israelite leaders did this to prevent the Israelites, who were given to idolatry, from worshiping Moses as a god.
As far as Freud himself goes, I don't know much about his drug habbits, but I do know he was obsessed with the concept of "oedipal violence" for some reason.
Considering that Adam had a relationship with Yahweh, it wouldn't surprise me that several other people prior to the Jews would as well. God didn't take a back seat and simply wait for Abram.
Very true. I was just going back in a shorter period of time than all the way back to Adam.
I understand. But, someone wants to take a small point of time out of context and, by doing so, create a "theory" based upon guesses and hope.0 -
Buschmaster: you are well studied and diverse in your knowledge of the subject of anti evangelism. And you are obviously an intelligent man. But if I may make a suggestion, you would be better served to explain the thing that happens. Us Christians understand this thing as the Holy Spirit. In order to convince a Christian that he is not experiencing what he is experiencing, you have to address the thing. It is the most powerful aspect of the whole experience. Forget about semantics and dispel the workings of the Holy Ghost in a mans heart. If I were you I would counter not just what it is, but more importantly what it does. In other words, convince a Christian from a Christian point of view. This is the only angle that I can see that would be effective. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological. you must not have read it.
If you read The Bible, I might think about reading this hoax book you are talking about.0 -
Wasn't Freud a cocaine addict? Those crack addicts really know what they are talking about. 0 -
quote:
Oh wow, now I get it. A paragraph from a psychologist (whose conclusions in his own field are no longer agreed with) full of speculation and quasi-history and probably and GOD disappears in a puff of logic.
So simple, really.
All gods disappear, or more accurately are demoted to mythology, when the men who created them stop believing.
It happened to Zeus, Apollo and Thor.0 -
Man I wish I could find that posting where a certain person ask if we would refrain from religious posts. I just can't remember who made those comments. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Man I wish I could find that posting where a certain person ask if we would refrain from religious posts. I just can't remember who made those comments.
I actually hope this thread doesn't get poofed. So far, everyone has managed to remain civil and the discussion is an interesting one.0 -
Siggy spent a great deal of his life snowblind....In my quest to prove God did not exist during my college years, I read most of
Frued's works and walked away with the believe that he was one of the most screwed up guys that ever walked the earth.
Drugs will do that......0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Man I wish I could find that posting where a certain person ask if we would refrain from religious posts. I just can't remember who made those comments.
.
Could it have been... Buschmaster?0 -
I am an atheist with a degree in psychology among other things, and even I don't find his writing convincing, if for no other reason because there is a large body of history of the hebrew people apart from Moses. A history going back to and before Babylon. 0 -
Did Abraham come from Babylon? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments