Christianity or Stoicism, which would be better able to teach moral progress in a human being?

[Cato]

Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

Stoicism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

Taken on their own merits, and not as one doctrine competing with another.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I voted Stoic.

This is because in my opinion Christianity teaches the most basic and strict moral line to follow (10 comandments, admit, believe, commit- basic moral ideas) but Christianity really doesn't focus much on the more grey areas. In Christianity all that matters is living for god and it's ok to let other things in life go.
On the other hand, Stoicism teaches more introspection, more time focusing on grey areas, how to interact in social situations and learning to develop yourself into a more enlightened state.

This is just what I think after reading "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius compared to the bible. Even if you're a Christian it doesn't hurt to read into Stoicism like Marcus Aurelius for some personal introspection.

[Hess]

Stoicism

[Sikeliot]

Stoicism.

[Curtis24]

Stoicism, but of course its very hard to teach Stoicism correctly.

[Cato]

Well, one of the reasons that I ask this question is out of a hidden desire to speak more openly about Stoicism. I was born and raised as a Christian, yet about age 15 I more or less rejected Christianity as a ridiculous set of fables.

The first book that I read after this was "To Myself," or "The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius." This was about 20 years ago. :)

I've tried to "re-Christianize" myself a couple of times, a couple of times ending in existential disaster. The Stoics held the Christians in disdain, contempt, avoidance, etc. The Stoics said that the Christians were death-obsessed ignorants, hateful of God because of their unsundry beliefs (i.e. Stoics preacher moral virtue, or avoidance of sin; Christians preached sin as a virtue and that God prefers sin over righteousness).

Et cetera.

However, I've begun to explore Stoicism (again!) and I've even given a couple of copies of "The Mediations of Marcus Aurelius" to a friend to keep. I prefer a "bottom-up" approach to God, a humanistic approach to God, rather than "a top-down" approach. Stoicism, and its parent school of Cynicism, do this for me. Christianity fails because it teaches unsavory doctrines (guilt, fear of damnation, etc.) as motivating factors for good behavior. Christians actively looked for martyrdom; Stoics accepted death on its own terms as a part of Zeus' plans for the progress of the cosmos unto perfection and the cosmic ekpyrosis.

The Stoics teach that "virtue is its own reward."

[Hess]

Cato, have you ever read the "Jefferson Bible"?

I think you would quite enjoy it

[Cato]

Stoicism, but of course its very hard to teach Stoicism correctly.

This is true; the Stoic student has to have skepticism and belief in equal amounts and a willingness to admit that, like Seneca, one will make mistakes and yet seeks moral progress. Christianity teaches belief in a sorcerer as the key to moral perfection.

Look at these two terms, progress and perfection.

The Stoics regarded moral progress as possible. The earlier Stoics did regard moral perfection as the ideal, but an ideal that very few could attain. The latter Stoics, Seneca, Musonius, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, were far more humane and regarded progression, and human mistakes, as natural for the proegression of one's morality. :)

[Cato]

Cato, have you ever read the "Jefferson Bible"?

I think you would quite enjoy it

I own a copy of it alongside "The Age of Reason."

[BeerBaron]

Stiocism, christianity will be lucky to survive the next century with the bashing its taking in the media because of the catholic prients, the criticism of atheism, and the onslaught of islam.

[Cato]

Stiocism, christianity will be lucky to survive the next century with the bashing its taking in the media because of the catholic prients, the criticism of atheism, and the onslaught of islam.

Stoics didn't seek converts but they did students who wanted to live "the good life." Christians love to moralize about their perfect, yet sinful, religion.

[Lucretius]

the choice is very easy,one has to choose (I don't believe in free will however) philosophy or faith.

[Debaser11]

Great topic. I think Christianity in its most pro-European, idealized form is not bad for Europe. Afterall, it wasn't according to history.

But I think these dispensations of thought have to be formed organically above all else. Much of modern paganism seems wooden to me. At any rate, Christianity's (Catholicism's) weakness is obviously its tendency to be read as being universal in totality (though it's not in a strict sense because it still allows room to advocate nationalism). Stoicism may not suffer from this weakness, but the fact of the matter is that anything I see right now that is pagan in Europe doesn't give me much hope, either. At the same time, paganist movements do seem to be freed of the "universal" problem and have a distinctly pro-white character to them that is regrettably absent in almost any form of modern Christianity.

[Winged Hussar]

I own a copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations which I've read a few times. As I understand it the book is actually his diary where he'd write down a few thoughts every day. He was very honest and had doubts too about lots of things like death or God or how to put up with rude people patiently.

Christianity just tells you to believe because "Jesus said so" or "God commanded it" and teaches a fear of hell as one of the motivations to be a good person. I don't even want to get into the stuff like what some Christians do like praying to statues or believing in stuff like visions or seeing Jesus on a piece of toast. :) I don't like it. It's just superstitious.

[Cato]

I own a copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations which I've read a few times. As I understand it the book is actually his diary where he'd write down a few thoughts every day. He was very honest and had doubts too about lots of things like death or God or how to put up with rude people patiently.

Christianity just tells you to believe because "Jesus said so" or "God commanded it" and teaches a fear of hell as one of the motivations to be a good person. I don't even want to get into the stuff like what some Christians do like praying to statues or believing in stuff like visions or seeing Jesus on a piece of toast. :) I don't like it. It's just superstitious.

It is properly titled To Myself. The Meditations are the more common but incorrect title, and yes it was the emperor's private diary of personal thoughts. He even mentions a fellow with stinky arm-pits at one point and how to deal with the smell. :p

As to your second paragraph, yes you hit a few nails on the head. Good behavior that is, say, predicated upon a fear or damnation in hell or a divine judgment is moral coercion and it makes God out to be arbitrary and tyrannical. The Christians like to slide around this a bit by citing free will and whatnot, yet if your or I choose to deny Jesus what's the result? God applies the fire and we get roasted in hell! Or you'll see some Christians believing in universal salvation. No need for good behavior since everyone gets a free pass out of jail! :D

Praying to statues? I suppose you mean the Catholic penchant for this activity. Do you know Heraclitus? One of his surviving fragments goes something like this: "People who pray to statues are as foolish as people who talk to walls."

[Breedingvariety]

Neither.

[Cato]

Neither.

That wasn't one of the two options. :rolleyes:

[safinator]

Stoicism for sure.

[HungAryan]

CHRISTIANITY ONLY.

[Mercury]

Stoicism would've prepared us better psychologically for this non-theistic age. Stoics seem to only wish to live honorably and focus on the here & now, not giving much thought as to what comes next. While Christianity seems world-denying to me. However I don't see how Stoicism could be for the common man, like Christianity can. It doesn't seem easy to market it to the general public, which may be one of it's problems.