I've been reading Max Jammer's (love that name!) Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology.

Just finished 'Le chair et le sang' (Flesh and Blood) by Francois Mauriac.
It was a difficult read, but rewarding towards the end. It captured the ambiguity and uncertainty of human relationships really well.

It felt somewhat Existentialist to me. But it was written in 1926, thus pre-dating Existentialism. — andrewk

I read Viper's Tangle years ago. It's a great book. Mauriac was friends with several French Existentialists, including Gabriel Marcel.

Marcel joined the ranks of “Christian existentialists” while working as the drama critic for L’Europe nouvelle. Following a favorable review of a work by François Mauriac, Marcel received a note from the author. “Why are you not one of us?” Mauriac asked. Not long after, Marcel joined the Catholic Church and would remain a defender of faith.

Mauriac wrote to Marcel in 1929.

Marcel's philosophy was always preoccupied with the religious dimension of life, but his upbringing had been religiously agnostic (uncertain as to whether one can really know that God exists), and he was not formally a believer. In 1929, however, an open letter from the distinguished French Catholic writer François Mauriac challenged Marcel to admit that his views suggested a belief in God. His subsequent conversion to Catholicism gave a new dimension to certain aspects of his philosophy. But he remained a strikingly independent thinker whose ideas were formed before his conversion—and as such could be regarded as important indicators of certain Godly aspects of the human experience. Marcel became a leader in French Catholic intellectual circles, and his Paris home was the locale for stimulating discussion among leading European intellectuals of all persuasions.

Thank you for your post!
I've been reading Stoic material for a little over a year. I'd recommend Epictetus' Handbook and his Discourses. (<--see links... you can read versions of them both online for free).

I really like Pierre Hadot. Especially The Inner Citadel, because it's about The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, but I also liked Philosophy as a Way of LIfe, although not all of it is about Stoicism.

I've been reading through this online version of Seneca's letters.

Another interesting book I stumbled on is The Creed of Epictetus- written in 1916.

Nicely put.

I suspect there is always a way to be virtuous. Traditionally the virtues include honesty. To try and find a way to justify lying kinda misses the point, IMHO.

The point being to try and find a way to be virtuous in all situations, even those that are admittedly difficult.... Not to try and find a way to justify lying.

Something else to consider:
I recently read On Virtue by Rosalind Hursthouse. She points out that people sometimes make the mistake of looking for a painless way to be virtuous. She suggests that the goal is to be virtuous, not to avoid pain...

It looks like other respondents are thinking along these same lines.

I just ordered Rilke's novel: The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge

I haven't heard of Nikolai Berdyaev. I'll have to look him up.

Thanks for those thoughts, John. I've been reading Rilke's (translated by Norton) Letters to a Young Poet. and I just started All Things Are Possible.

I was impressed by this description of the young Rilke...

... he entered [military school] in good condition, sunburned and well after summer holidays and of normal development for his age, he was by temperament totally unfitted to stand the physical discipline of any such establishment and, which was even worse, soon became the victim of his comrades' active and cruel contempt. Doubtless they found him a romantic sentimentalist and prig, for which his early childhood would have been much to blame. Any ten- or twelve- or fourteen-year-old boy who, on being vigorously struck in the face, could say in a quiet voice..."I endure it because Christ endured it, silently and without complaint, and while you were hitting me I prayed my good God to forgive you,'' need have expected nothing but the derisive laughter of his contemporaries.

Virtue

The future might belong to Christianity. But, I think that whether or not it actually does, is ultimately up to God (I suspect you agree). Can you make the case that Christians know what God wants of them, and that they are actually doing what God wants?

If they don't, and they're not, then He might just find somebody else to do His will.

Thank you!

I've been told that the Philosophical Review is one of the better/more popular journals.

Thank you, well said. And interesting article.

I've been listening to 21 Pilots, Lorde and Lukas Graham.

Review of Philosophy and Psychology has some open access articles. https://link.springer.com/search?query=&search-within=Journal&facet-journal-id=13164&package=openaccessarticles

Analysis looks like a good one. https://academic.oup.com/analysis

What you describe sounds like it could be compatible with the way that Aristotle thought about God. Or the Stoics, for that matter.

What I see in this thread is what I think could be called a category error..... You appear to be making an argument using these premises
P1. Christianity is a religion about rules (and you admit your fellow Christians have a hard time following the ones you want them to)
P2. Stoicism is also about rules
P3. Modern Stoics don't have as much unity (when compared to Christianity) when it comes to the rules

And then you come to the conclusion
C: Christianity is better than Stoicism.

But, you also argue that it's better that one follow rules, vs just having rules. (and again, I'll point out that you admit your fellow Christians have a hard time following the rules you want them to)

Will you stand by your assertion that Christianity is about rules? Because I'm pretty sure that Jesus says otherwise.

and I'm pretty sure that you'd have to agree that Christians don't actually have much unity in any of their beliefs... including which rules to follow... (if it turns out that Christianity is actually about rules).

If I were a Christian, I'd be scared to death that God would leave us behind [like he did the Jews] and find another path for His will. (Romans 11:17)

How long will a good God put up w/ His (self-proclaimed) followers putting wealth first and mistreating their neighbors [the message is, "sure, you can immigrate to flee persecution... just don't come here" and "oh, you're poor? Too bad, shoulda tried harder to be born into a good family."]

I imagine telling my son about Christianity:
Me: There is a cool religion that is all about a good God who sent His Jesus son to die in our stead. This God says that we ought to love one another as He loves us. His followers turn the other check when insulted. They love their neighbors as themselves. (Thou shalt love the Lord thy God will all your heart... and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself) Jesus told them to give up all worldly possessions, and follow Him... (Matthew 19:21)
Son: Where are those followers?
Me: They all died a long time ago...

When was the last time you saw a (self-proclaimed) Christian who did anything even remotely like the character of the tax-collector in the story of the 2 men who went to the temple to pray ( Luke 18:10)?

I guess I'm confused. Is there unity among Christians about what the Bible says about sexual morality or isn't there?

Are Christians in agreement about what the Bible says about sexual orientation?

Yes, of course. But not so much when it comes to moral behaviour. — Agustino

Are attitudes about sexual orientation concerned with moral behavior? What about attitudes towards how to deal with strangers (I'm thinking about immigration)? [I'm in the US].

How I am not applying the same standard? — Agustino

Are there issues in Christianity that are open to interpretation?

Of course what people are actually doing is more important, but I wasn't talking about that.

Then aren't there some things you ought to be saying to your fellow Christians?

Again... are you applying the same standard (the rules are up for interpretation) to your belief system (in this case Christianity)?

Is the main issue about what people are actually doing? Or is it merely a matter of whether or not there are rules in place?

The ones wherein you mention sex and unity of beliefs in regards to Christianity and Stoicism.

What about caffeine? It has withdrawal symptoms, therefore it's also addictive! So everyone should definitely stop drinking sweet coffee, ever! — Noblosh

Hmm. What about this? There are some objectively measurable problems with caffeine consumption. So, perhaps we ought to be honest about them... and consider the cost. Is caffeine consumption causing problems? If it is, then what are some possible solutions?

"If people did not sometimes do silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done."
Wittgenstein

“Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: where there is compassion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless.”
Eric Hoffer.

“Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil proceeding within us.”
Eric Hoffer

Hmm. Could be.. Have you read Paul Davies' The Mind of God?

The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."

In the preface, Davies explains that he has been interested in ultimate causes since childhood, having annoyed his parents with unending "why's" about everything, with each answer demanding another "why," and usually ending with the reply, "Because God made it that way, and that's that!" In the book proper, Davies briefly explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

He concludes with a statement of his belief that, even though we may never attain a theory of everything, "the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."

I recently read Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama...
From the book:

Buddhist philosophy tells us that all personal unhappiness and interpersonal conflict lie in the “three poisons”: craving, anger, and delusion. It also provides antidotes of astonishing psychological sophistication--which are now being confirmed by modern neuroscience. With new high-tech devices, scientists can peer inside the brain centers that calm the inner storms of rage and fear. They also can demonstrate that awareness-training strategies such as meditation strengthen emotional stability—and greatly enhance our positive moods.

It looks to me like the Buddhist view of anger is very similar to that of the ancient Stoics.

I'm afraid, having seen Guardians of the Galaxy II (including the extras during the credits), that I'll have to challenge the basic premise as laid out in the OP. It seems to me that, the people who understand Groot are the people who are closest to him... and that includes Peter Quill.

But, perhaps it is also true that the people who understand best what the universe is saying, are those who are closest to it (whatever that means).

@bitter crank & others
the thought I was conveying is that if there is evidence that making porn is harmful to the people actually involved in the industry, then it seems it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

When I suggested that people in the porn industry are being harmed, it seems to me that others suggested they are aware of people being harmed in other industries, too, but they don't care. My thought is, perhaps we ought to care about people being harmed, no matter the industry.

I don't know that I'll stop spending my money at certain establishments (i.e. McDonalds), assuming there is evidence of harm.... But, I might do what I can to fix the problem. The first step is actually acknowledging there is an issue, instead of denying it, or minimizing it. I do care about exploited workers, no matter the industry or job.

In another post, I may have conflated the passions (harmful emotions, or emotional suffering) viewing porn can cause (Lust) with the harm that working in the industry presumably causes. For that, I apologize.

Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions? — anonymous66

But what's their purpose? Are they some kind of anomaly? Don't they serve any function? — noblosh

I got the concept slightly wrong... the idea I meant to convey is that the passions are forms of emotional suffering.
Here is how the Stoics thought about them...

Distress is an irrational contraction, or a fresh opinion that something bad is present, at which people think it right to be depressed.

Fear is an irrational aversion, or avoidance of an expected danger.

Lust is an irrational desire, or pursuit of an expected good.

Delight is an irrational swelling, or a fresh opinion that something good is present, at which people think it right to be elated.

I would think that the purpose of emotional suffering would be to propel us toward things that aren't harmful... and toward things that don't cause suffering.
I was looking at the passions from the standpoint of the tradition of Western Philosophy. There are some things that can't harm- it's hard to see how wisdom or justice could be harmful... And there are some things that are harmful. Lust has traditionally been thought of as being harmful.

I was assuming that the Stoics defined anger in the same way that Aristotle did (as a desire for payback- to return harm for perceived harm). But, Seneca says he doesn't go as far as Aristotle did, and yet he still thinks the emotion is always damaging, and believes it is something that humanity would be better off without.

Let me just point out that consistency/reason/rationality requires that you judge your own belief system (and its followers) by the same standards with which you judge others. — anonymous66

What makes you think I don't? — Augustino

Your previous posts.

They are all equally deadly; why don't we have discussions here about envy, sloth and gluttony? There's certainly plenty of that going around. — Bitter Crank

Wouldn't the world be a better place without the passions?

This reminds me of a conversation wherein my interlocutor said, "I don't care about the exploited workers at McDonald's.... so, why would I care about exploitation in the porn industry?"
Maybe we should care about exploitation, no matter where it occurs.

From where I'm sitting, some are saying, "wouldn't the world be a better place if we could get rid of [all of] the passions?"
And some are saying, I don't care about passion X, so why would I care about passion Y?" Or maybe they're saying, "I don't care about passion X in situation Y, so why would I care about passion X in situation Z?"
If there is a passion (harmful emotion) involved with porn... let's be honest about it.

@Noblosh
What are you suggesting is the purpose of pornography?