This seems silly to me- first, your failure to differentiate Aristotle and Plato and their implications for Psychology might reveal something about the depth of your consideration of a school of thought. Making Ad Hominem attacks against early theorists, while a favorite tactic of the ignorant, does not have any bearing on the validity of an idea. I absolutely reject the idea that a person is the root of an idea, because the merits of a thought have nothing to do with the merits of a person. Also, St. Paul specifically rejects your condemnation of philosophy ('A law unto themselves- Romans. Check out the study thereof for a thoughtful explanation)
Your assertion of what constitutes the root of an idea is objectionable. Furthermore, was Christ not acting like a psycologist? You make it sound like he waved his hands and said 'I holy spirited you, you has no problems now' Rather, he gives forgiveness that starts with an affirmation of the value of the penitent- (think of the woman who washes His feet with her tears and hair, or the adultress about to be stoned) which sounds a lot like psychology to me.
I strongly disagree- the mind and the soul are related, but not the same thing. A starving man needs Christ and bread- a sick man needs Christ and medicene, a depressed man needs Christ and psychiatric help. Surely Christ works miracles every day, but to demand and expect it is to tempt God.
Ew... both you Greek and your mythology is off. psychen does not reflect the dichotomy of mind and soul (largely a result of hebraic and christian traditions of philosophy) and the character Psyche was a mortal. Psychen is more accurately translated mind, mindset, or state of mind. Also, where are you getting this 'ignores the soul' stuff. Now it isn't a soul approach, but rather a mind approach, so it doesn't theorize on how God will get rid of your depression. But psychology does recognise that religion provides much better outcomes and can help recover from depression. It's just in another realm- if you want to know how to lose weight by atheletic activity, the answer will not involve how to diet- but that does not deny the necessity and usefulness of dieting.
1) you present this as an absolute- which does not reflect reality. People still make choices- that's why people from the same environment are not the same. I think that Christian theology would share the extent to which people are shaped by their experiences- think about St. Augustine and his peculiar path to God through needing to escape sin.
2) This is just false. You confuse Psychology with morality- the former does not attempt to assign responsibility and doing so would not be helpful to the field. it starts with an attempt to understand why people make the choices they do, and then attempts to change that path of causation. Perhaps because of the status of comprehension and sanity in the law, you've incorrectly interpolated legal guilt (which psychology does not shape, it only informs standards independently set) with moral responsibility. The two are not the same, nor does one result in the other.
3) Absolutely not. A victim is powerless and recieves actions. The point of psychology is to understand what happens and empower a person to change their situation and thoughts. Frankly, your focus on 'responsibility' misses the point and is a bit offensive. In what sense is it useful to tell a depressed person or paranoid schizophrenic about responsibility? I have a feeling that perhaps you do not have a very close understanding of what psychology does.
4) Yes, but self esteem is paramount for a healty, functioning mind- not validation, not purpose, and certainly not salvation. I doubt you can argue that a person without self esteem can function in a healthy manner.
'abigya' in her O.P. was quoting the words of the international gospel preacher 'Andrew Womack'
Andrew Womack represents Jesus and the ministry of the gospel to folks and nations. "Salvation is of the Lord"
This is thought number 1
When the great man Paul preached in Athens he observed that they were "very religious" He made this remark having observed that they had erected a shrine to every known god. Even having a shrine "To the Unknown god" not wanting to exclude any.
Paul said that he wanted to declare this 'Unknown god' to them, and went on to preach Jesus. Philosophers of that day were in the crowd. Some of these 'thinkers' came to know Jesus that day.
Acts 17 v 16-34
Womack, like Paul, exalts Jesus, Jesus was the only Saviour in Paul's day as he confronted the Greek philosopher of Athens, and Jesus remains the only Saviour and the only saving message today.
Appreciate your thoughts/knowledge 'Laudite' but please do not so attack our lovely 'abigya' she is just trying to exalt Jesus