http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/stoics.php

It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe", He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb", this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He IS the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly. Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e. g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.

At Alexandria, Hermes was identified with Thoth, the god of Hermopolis, known later as the great Hermes, "Hermes Trismegistus", and represented as the revealer of all letters and all religion.

I will go through with thee, in order that thou mayst not be uninitiate in the name of the more excellent God; but do thou understand, how that seeming to the many nonapparent, shall become very apparent to thee. For it would not be, if it were nonapparent. For everything apparent is generated, for it hath appeared. But the nonapparent always is, for it has no need to appear. For it ever is, and makes all other things apparent. He being nonapparent, as ever being, Himself making manifest, is not made manifest; not Himself generated; but in imagination, imagining all things. For imagination is of the things generated only. For imagination is naught but generation.

I rather favour stoicism, but I've always had difficulty keeping my emotions out of my opinions even though I try to take a cool, analytical, evidenced, scientific, approach. But in my experience, I'm not that different to most, and, after all, evolution has maintained emotions in our psychological portfolio and without intervention most humans will regularly use/experience/expose them. By intervention I mean with pharmacological, psychomodification/behavioural therapy and so on. But wouldn't these dehumanise us somewhat? Ok we shouldn't murder those with opinions that conflict, but if we modify emotions can we be sure we won't lose valuable properties or overlapping emotions? Sorry, my response here is not very well thought out. This IS an important topic though, as many think the clinical approach to issues is the most appropriate. Yet so many aspects of life attempt to stimulate and draw out the emotions - just look at a typical day's TV listings.

I thought you were Christian from reading your previous posts? Which is it, Trip? Just curious!

I was born Roman Catholic.

Yea, but, you don't beleive in the fairy tale no more, right?

I too was born Roman Catholic, but it really doesn't matter if you believe in the fairy tale or not, at least in my case. Being Roman Catholic in my case was really like being born into a religion, you don't get a choice, it is kind of a way of life. All of our family customs are based around Catholic traditions, so it doesn't matter if you believe or not, it is still a part of you.

maybe just in a different way.

Care to elaborate?

.... maybe.