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
-
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Did Abraham come from Babylon?
Nearby. a city called Ur, also in what is now called Iraq.
Hey, maybe this "YHWH" knew something after all when he said that the descendents of Isaac (the Jews) and the descendents of Ishmael (the Muslims) would always have strife between them. Weird, huh?0 -
quote:Originally posted by COLT
...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"...[;)]
Freud made many of his major contributions both before he started abusing cocaine, and after he quit, so that's not really fair.
But in terms of sustance abuse, Freud's biggest problem wasn't the coke. . .he gave it up and renounced it later in life as destructive. . .it was his SMOKING. He died of oral cancer.0 -
quote:Originally posted by NeilTheBrit
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.
Brilliant.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
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.
Are you suggesting that he must use superstition to convince you that your superstition is superstition?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Did Abraham come from Babylon?
Nearby. a city called Ur, also in what is now called Iraq.
Hey, maybe this "YHWH" knew something after all when he said that the descendents of Isaac (the Jews) and the descendents of Ishmael (the Muslims) would always have strife between them. Weird, huh?
No, predictable and obvious.
The Jews and Muslims have been at odds as to who inherited Isaac's birthright the whole time. Now, they merely consider the birthright Israel.0 -
This has been quite entertaining! Now it's time for my 3:00 Bible break. Too bad ol' Siggie was struggling so much with his Jewishness, his ego, his id, his angst, his sexuality, his male unit, and his lousy childhood. He should have instead gone for a walk, and talked with God. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by sav99
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.
Are you suggesting that he must use superstition to convince you that your superstition is superstition?
That didn't exactly make any sense. I think you somehow missed my point.0 -
COLT
...You need to get out, read/research more...that sir, is a fact...or do really just ignore all facts?
what's there to ignore? admittedly I haven't read much of Freud, because I'm not a psychologist and it wasn't required reading for anything, but what I have read doesn't seem inane at all. including what he wrote here. so what does it matter even if he was a coke head at some other time? he did the work and it was good.
btw, the god worshippers are the most fact-ignoring bunch out of anybody.
...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.
well? was he rational at this time? y-e-s
...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...
picking and choosing? this is the only thing I posted about the subject. 1 letter. in its entirety, as far as I know. and you would discredit everything he says, including his other work -and you can't deny that right or wrong he was one of the biggest contributors to the field of psychology and the analysis of it- simply because he snorted coke, which wasn't entirely uncommon at the time.
why don't you say anybody who drinks coca cola is a loser druggie, becuase it used to have cocaine in it?
why wouldn't your biggest criticism of Bill Clinton be his coke habits? his brother said he has a nose like a vacuum cleaner.
why wouldn't your biggest criticism of George Bush be his past drug use, alcohol use, or possibly a current alcohol abuse problem?
why don't you have a problem with all those musicians you listen to who smoke pot, snort coke, shoot heroine, or whatever drugs they won't tell anybody about?
because it doesn't serve your purpose.
so it aint' going to work here either.
spanielsells
Just because he studied Egyptology does not make his "facts" factual.
ya, and, if he's right he's right too.
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.
big deal.
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.
he admits as much in the letter, where he says
quote:Originally posted by Sigmund Freud
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.
so he says those aren't incontovertible facts, but the evidence is good enough for him to accept. he even says so. what's wrong with that? as for my part, I'm far more inclined to believe such findings, grounded in reality, than the original myth of a supernatural being who told some guy via a burning bush to take these tablets he carved out of a mountain with a lightning bolt and go make these Chosen People obey his religion, cause frogs to rain out of the sky etc. etc. and wave his staff to make a sea part in two so their tribe can walk through it.
what do you think. what sounds more likely, that or Freud's explanation. I'll take Freud's explanation as the closest thing to truth about the matter that I've heard so far.
in fact, it's vaguely similar to how Mohammed got the religion of Islam started. so those things do happen.
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.
those are laws. these are historical events that we have to figure out for ourselves. if you want to put that much importance on this history, then why should anybody waste their life following what they can't undeniably prove. as any of the god worshippers. "I can't prove anything, just believe". who has more evidence as to what actually happened? Freud. the disparity is ridiculous.
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?
the letter wasn't a research paper, it was a summary, a letter to his friend. do you expect a listing of footnotes and a bibliography in a letter? get real. if you want to know where he got the information, it's probbaly in the book he was referring to, Moses and Monotheism. how's that.
rambo rebel
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?
a lot of doctors thought that at the time.
spanielsells
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.
no, based on some research he did. duh. and it's not out of context whatsoever.
god worshippers live lives based on guesses and hope. and false myths, as you can see.
sav99
Buschmaster: you are well studied and diverse in your knowledge of the subject of anti evangelism.
not really
And you are obviously an intelligent man.
actually I'm dumb as a rock.
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.
well answered by gruntled:
Are you suggesting that he must use superstition to convince you that your superstition is superstition?
oklahoma223
If you read The Bible, I might think about reading this hoax book you are talking about.
why? I don't need to.
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.
hhmm... who could that be... can't remember... btw, why do these ppl keep posting about religion? going to have to provide a counterpoint.
RiverRat
This has been quite entertaining! Now it's time for my 3:00 Bible break. Too bad ol' Siggie was struggling so much with his Jewishness, his ego, his id, his angst, his sexuality, his male unit, and his lousy childhood. He should have instead gone for a walk, and talked with God.
would have screwed him up worse. he would have been better off talking to a psychologist.0 -
Man Bushy, that's alot of writing, ol Sigmunds been sharing some of his stash with you. 0 -
hmmm.. does cocaine go stale? I wonder what a 100 year old pile of coke would look like. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by sav99
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.
Are you suggesting that he must use superstition to convince you that your superstition is superstition?
That didn't exactly make any sense. I think you somehow missed my point.
Very easy to do since I can't figure out what your point is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Did Abraham come from Babylon?
Nearby. a city called Ur, also in what is now called Iraq.
Hey, maybe this "YHWH" knew something after all when he said that the descendents of Isaac (the Jews) and the descendents of Ishmael (the Muslims) would always have strife between them. Weird, huh?
No, predictable and obvious.
The Jews and Muslims have been at odds as to who inherited Isaac's birthright the whole time. Now, they merely consider the birthright Israel.
It wasn't Isaac's birthright in the first place. Ishmael was Abraham's oldest son.0 -
quote by gruntled:
Very easy to do since I can't figure out what your point is.
My point was the "thing" that happens to a person when they receive Christ, when they become born again. Debating semantics does not change that fact. To truly be effective, one would have to somehow address the Holy Spirit. Now do you know what I'm referring to?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
the basis of his conclusions is historical, not psychological.
If his conclusions are historical, not psychological, upon what authority does he speak (beyond anyone else)? Just curious: Did Freud similarly hold opinion about quantum mechanics?
No?
Imagine that.
zzz-zzz-zzz0 -
on his hobby as an egyptologist.
you can go back to sleep now.0 -
Hey, I heard a dog talk and I was only thinking of dropping a couple dots. Did a couple hits, foot raced a tree home and lost. Stuff happens, stuff has been happening, stuff will continue to happen and we don't have a clue to what's going on. That is the only knowledge worth knowing. Anything else is B.S. pretty much. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote by gruntled:
Very easy to do since I can't figure out what your point is.
My point was the "thing" that happens to a person when they receive Christ, when they become born again. Debating semantics does not change that fact. To truly be effective, one would have to somehow address the Holy Spirit. Now do you know what I'm referring to?
Nope. How would I know which of the three heads I was talking to & why would addressing some mythological being convince you how foolish this nonsense is?0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
Did Abraham come from Babylon?
Nearby. a city called Ur, also in what is now called Iraq.
Hey, maybe this "YHWH" knew something after all when he said that the descendents of Isaac (the Jews) and the descendents of Ishmael (the Muslims) would always have strife between them. Weird, huh?
No, predictable and obvious.
The Jews and Muslims have been at odds as to who inherited Isaac's birthright the whole time. Now, they merely consider the birthright Israel.
It wasn't Isaac's birthright in the first place. Ishmael was Abraham's oldest son.
Jacob and Esau was the start. Both sons of Isaac.0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote by gruntled:
Very easy to do since I can't figure out what your point is.
My point was the "thing" that happens to a person when they receive Christ, when they become born again. Debating semantics does not change that fact. To truly be effective, one would have to somehow address the Holy Spirit. Now do you know what I'm referring to?
Nope. How would I know which of the three heads I was talking to & why would addressing some mythological being convince you how foolish this nonsense is?
To answer your question; addressing what is happening, is essential to me understanding my error in perception. Despite your in depth understanding and expertise, you are not telling me what is going on concerning my relationship with Christ. Are you really trying to help me and intelligently explain it or aren't you? Or are you just bad mouthing without really saying anything? If you know the answer please help me out here would ya?
Now suppose that you were doing some electrical work in your home, replacing an outlet lets say. Without your knowledge someone turned the power on to that outlet, and you got a nice 110 volt shock. Now what words should I best use to convince you that you did not get a shock as you claim? What would it take to make you understand that it just didn't happen to you?
Please try to answer intelligently without simple and nondescript words such as "myth", "foolishness", "nonsense", etc. Those words are too vague, and really don't explain anything at all. Kindly help me to understand what I'm missing here, thanks.[:)]0 -
It is what it is ... a contrivance of man. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
quote:Originally posted by sav99
quote by gruntled:
Very easy to do since I can't figure out what your point is.
My point was the "thing" that happens to a person when they receive Christ, when they become born again. Debating semantics does not change that fact. To truly be effective, one would have to somehow address the Holy Spirit. Now do you know what I'm referring to?
Nope. How would I know which of the three heads I was talking to & why would addressing some mythological being convince you how foolish this nonsense is?
To answer your question; addressing what is happening, is essential to me understanding my error in perception. Despite your in depth understanding and expertise, you are not telling me what is going on concerning my relationship with Christ. Are you really trying to help me and intelligently explain it or aren't you? Or are you just bad mouthing without really saying anything? If you know the answer please help me out here would ya?
Now suppose that you were doing some electrical work in your home, replacing an outlet lets say. Without your knowledge someone turned the power on to that outlet, and you got a nice 110 volt shock. Now what words should I best use to convince you that you did not get a shock as you claim? What would it take to make you understand that it just didn't happen to you?
Please try to answer intelligently without simple and nondescript words such as "myth", "foolishness", "nonsense", etc. Those words are too vague, and really don't explain anything at all. Kindly help me to understand what I'm missing here, thanks.[:)]
Oh I like this one.
The jolt of euphoria expressed by the 'born again' christian, the attaining of 'enlightenment' by followers of the eastern religions, finding a 'spirit guide' by some indian tribes, every religion has a benchmark for it, all of these have in common the giving over of control of one's life to another power. This is a big deal since humans are inately control freaks. The irony is that the ability to control anything of consequence is illusionary to begin with. Whatever path it takes to get to that starting point is ok by me. I only wish all organized religions would feel that way toward each other. Instead of condemning the path, they should congratulate the arrival or atleast respect it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
on his hobby as an egyptologist.
You obviously have an amazing gift for non sequitur.
Good for you!0 -
I'm glad that you liked it Bigdaddyjunior. Good too that someone gets it. Euphoria is a great understatement, and it is a much different thing than that. It's actually illogical and perplexing from a psychological viewpoint. But you understand the point that I'm illustrating. I talked about this with a variety of religious people ranging from Muslim to Buddhist to J.W. They never understood what we were talking about beyond a philosophical or emotional experience. It's cool that you can dig it. 0 -
went and asked my dad, who is a psychologist, what esteem do psychologists have of Freud.
He said he was a major contributor to the field of psychology, a prolific writer; he was the first to really develop the idea of an unconscious mind; and along with Jung and Adler, he is generally considered to be one of the founding fathers of psychology.
(already knew that)
but is he nowadays dismissed as a drug crazed loony?
no. many of his ideas are considered obsolete, for example the concept of "id" and "ego", but then again there are a lot of people with different ideas now. some people think he's fantastic, others have their own ideas and he's totally discredited, but nothing on the grounds that it was all drug induced hallucinations.
do people still use his ideas about psychology?
some do and some don't. if you are going to become a licensed practitioner in psychology or psychiatry, you have to be familiar with his concepts.
so there. nyahh nyahh nyah.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
54 comments