Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Non-directive counselling

In general and in counselling do not talk about what the other person ought to do or should do. Talk about what they need to do. Need is non-judgmental in that it helps you assess. Assessing is not judging.

Non-directive counselling is about helping people to find their own direction in life.

Non-directive counselling is the only real form of counselling there is!

The counsellors will not be responsible for any decision made by the clients. The decision must not be influenced by the counsellors. The counsellors will keep moral guidance out of their agencies. Instead they help the clients to think about the different choices they can make and to choose the one they think is the best. It is always up to each individual client to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

People worry about non-directive counselling and how it can work in situations that seem to raise moral issues. For example, if somebody is planning to commit suicide or beat up his or her spouse. Would it be professional misconduct for the counsellor to try and give direction?

Some say that non-directive counselling does involve the counsellor giving direction. Examples are given of when a counsellor brings up a certain possible solution to the persons' problems. This can influence the clients to make a particular decision.

Non-directive counselling is godless for it ignores the rule that obedience to God comes first even if it hurts God's servant. Also, if the counsellor influences the client, this is not intentional. The counselling is based on the client influencing herself or himself.


Carl Rogers


• experiencing a warm acceptance of each aspect of the client's experience as being a part of that client... It means that there are no conditions of acceptance, no feeling of "I like you only if you are thus and so." It means a "prizing" of the person, as Dewey has used that term. It is at the opposite pole from a selective evaluating attitude -- "You are bad in these ways, good in those."
Given a questionnaire, Rogers said, the therapist would identify as "true for me" items such as: "I feel no revulsion at anything the client says," "I feel neither approval nor disapproval of the client and his statements -- simply acceptance," "I am not inclined to pass judgment on what the client tells me," and "I like the clien
psychological work inevitably involves judgments of personality, either implicitly or explicitly, and even neutral statements by psychologists can readily be perceived as judgmental by others. Even those exceptional cases in which we judge the whole person—“you’re the best” or “you’re no good”—nonetheless reduce the person to a single simple quality.
Carl rogers agud that a therapist must accept the client totally and unconditionally. In other words it does not matter what ht clint says or does. The argument was that this stopped the client being defencive and hdign anything. A clitn who fls judgd o that his dd will b judged will not open up well. This mentality soon turned God into a clstical thpasit and Jsus into a counsll. Socity started to treat itslf as a group therapy entity


The psychologist Carl Rogers indicated that we are born with an innate and instinctive sense of right and wrong that is developed by our environment and education. In A