Home Discussion Forum Isn't the Holy Trinity a primitive expression of Freud's id, ego and...

Isn't the Holy Trinity a primitive expression of Freud's id, ego and superego concepts?

The God the Father figure is expressed in Freudian psychology as the super-ego. It is the part of the self which acts as the conscience, maintaining one’s sense of morality and proscription against wrongs.
The God the Son figure is represented in Freudian psych as the id. The id concerns itself with the human desires of pleasure and earthly fulfillment, our desires for earthly love and such. The id models the embodiment of God made human flesh.
The ego is the Holy Ghost figure. The ego encapsulates the spiritual qualities of humans such as compassion, tolerance and helping the human to relate to others in socially appropriate ways.
So couldn’t it be said that the Christian Holy Trinity is nothing more than an earlier expression of the id, ego and superego in Freudian psychology?
I may not be that brainy, but one thing’s for sure, I know how to spell Freud correctly.
And Freud’s theories are at least temporally more modern than the Holy Trinity concept.


  1. i think that Frueds theories are a primitive animalistic interpretation of the concept of the Trinity, dude.
    I think that you think too much, you’re not that brainy, dude, take a break, have a sandwich and a glass of milk. relax.

  2. The Father, Son and Holy Spirt are the representation of the tripartness of man: body, mind and spirit. The subconscious, conscious and superconsciousness are also the same representation. You think they are separate, when they are not.
    There is no separation between these sets of terms. They are merely words which define variations of the same thing.

  3. Isn’t the Holy Trinity a primitive expression of Freud’s id, ego and superego concepts? <<==no So couldn't it be said that the Christian Holy Trinity is nothing more than an earlier expression of the id, ego and superego in Freudian psychology?<<==Some people try to understand it, but the real motive of revealing this mystery to us is that it may not be in the ability of the human mind to understand the Trinity. Jesus implied that those three are one, but also implied that they are different one to another.

  4. It’s a very interesting concept to say the least. I’d like to see it more fleshed out though. I expect a full 20-page paper on my desk Monday morning. 😛

  5. God the father figure is first a Jewish concept. I think Jewish and Christian concepts of God are much more complicated than what you expose here. Freudian concepts are also more complex than this. As for Freud himself, he first gave a psychological interpretation of God as a neurosis, but later in his life came back to the Jewish faith and actually gave a reading of the Bible. You should read Moses and Monotheism.

  6. Other than the fact that Freud’s model is in three parts, there is no similarity between the traditional Trinitarian model and Freud’s model. I like the idea, but the theological roles of the three persons of the Trinity actually do not line up with your model. Traditionally, the Father is the metaphysical source, the Son is the Logos or potentiality, and the Holy Spirit is the energeia, or actualization of potential.

  7. No dear.
    The trinity concept was invented during the Council of Nicea during the fourth century AD. The idea was to come up with a new innovative marketing idea in order to impress the pagans.
    Trinity was adopted as a concept no one really understood. Of course eternal damnation was promised to whoever questioned the concept. That was supposed to drive the unbelievers into the faith…. Part of christianity never bought the concept and it also created the first major separation in the cult followers.
    Basically it’s nonsense…

  8. I think it’s an interesting concept, but I don’t agree completely.
    The Holy Spirit is the most abstract portion of the trinty, and the ego is fairly well known to each individual.
    Also, the id is concerned alot with basic needs inaddition to the more sophisticate desires that you described. I don’t know if I see Jesus as fulfilling basic needs because the Jews survived just fine with out him and his philophy was fairly evolved, maybe not complicated, but he was a revolutionary and he eventually sacrificed his earthly life. He also preached a lot about living for the future and sacrifice, which would be putting pleasure off until after death.
    But I do like the super-ego God analogy, however, I think you could also apply that to the Jesus portion of the trinity.
    It’s an interesting proposition and I’m glad I read it. Please rebut, if you have time.

  9. The mystery of the Holy Trinity in itself is inaccessible to the human mind, but that does not mean it can’t exist, because it was revealed by Jesus Christ,the divine Son of the eternal Father.Psychology has nothing to do with it.

  10. The Trinity can be a difficult concept to understand. Some think it is a logical contradiction. Others call it a mystery. Does the Bible teach it? Yes it does, see trinity, but that doesn’t automatically make it easier to comprehend.
    The Trinity is defined as one God who exists in three eternal, simultaneous, and distinct persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Such a definition may suffice for some, but for others this explanation is insufficient.
    Therefore, to help understand the Trinity better, I offer the following analogy that, I think, is hinted at in Rom. 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.”
    Notice that this verse says God’s attributes, power, and nature, can be clearly seen in creation. What does that mean? Should we be able to learn about God’s attributes, power, and nature by looking at what He has made? Apparently, according to the Bible, this is possible.
    When a painter paints a picture, what is in him is reflected in the painting he produces. When a sculptor creates a work of art, it is from his heart and mind that the source of the sculpture is born. The work is shaped by his creative ability. The creators of art leave their marks, something that is their own, something that reflects what they are. Is this the same with God? Has God left His fingerprints on creation? Of course He has.

  11. The female version of the trinity is:
    Holy Ghost, Savior, and Sacrifice. A woman spends her life bouncing between savior and sacrifice and ends up a holy ghost.

  12. And yes, the convoluted memes of the Holy Trinity is expressed in Freud’s psychological trinity. Realize there is a fourth part: the true self. IE. you.
    Also note Hinduism’s Shiva, Brahman, and Vishnu. Holy Trinity again. Those are so ancient they kept switching genders because they couldn’t remember/decide who was the Man Woman and Child of the true trinity.

  13. I googled and found this entry since I thought of the parallelism of Freudian Id-Ego-Superego and concept of Trinity during my morning commute the other day; it seemed obvious that the observation is so straightforward that it cannot be novel; at the same time, it may be misguided (think of “Strong Law of Small Numbers” in context of concepts).
    Not to go into theological fight, I, like some others, do not agree to the attribution of roles as in the original entry.
    If wee seek parallels, then the two invisibles, Id and Super-ego, must be the ‘invisibles’ in Trinity – The Father and Holy Spirit.
    That leaves The Son as Ego. I’d sand by that, as The Son is (was) here, palpable, the only case when one could “put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side”.
    Next step is rather ambiguous. For me, both the Father and the Holy Spirit ‘compete’ for the role of Super-ego. If I must choose, I must give it to the Holy Spirit, as it arrives later, while the Father is present from the outset – as is Id. Theologically I can live with that, including all ‘undercurrents’ that Id presents: if I think of the OT God ( = The Father), He is, shall we say, quite something (OT describes a bloodbath or two…).
    To conclude, I do think that we are on to something, no biggie, yet this may help us to understand Freud’s ‘scheme’, and/ or the ways how others have understood and [re-] interpreted the Freudian model.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here