And not letting them override your ability to think logically and stay within yourself. As Christian’s we can use stoicism as a thought process to stay within ourselves so we can remind our Self who God is, who we are in God and because of God, and not rise to hysterics in the face of anxiety or fear. Stoic philosophy isn’t absence of emotion. That’s impossible, we’re all human and created by God who possess traits of deep feeling and desire for joy, peace, and love. Instead like you said stoic philosophy is about understanding our emotions, their sources, and mental processes of what we do with them. It’s just coincidence that it was birthed out of a time of pandemic and disarray where most leaders were experiencing extreme fear, anxiety, and sorrow (so a lot of original stoic motivation is out of casting away fear, doubt, and sorrow in order to focus on what needs to be done to move forward)
Pastor John- I am a very devoted Christian who loves Jesus and follows God. I also was in new age - so always very, very careful with anything I take in. Stoicism isn’t about no emotion. It’s about self control. Self management. Self discipline. I always go to god first - but sometimes learning from great people like Marcus Aurelius on how they practically manage themself is very helpful. I’m quite emotional - and those get me in trouble more often than not (anger, self loathing, etc) Just saying - change the title
Ignoring our emotion and managing our emotion are completely different things We can't have a partnership with Holy Spirit, if we kill our emotion. So, how can we have a strong hope in God, while at the same time Stoicism believes to reject the hope as it is uncontrollable element?? Christianity is caring and love, Stoicism is apathetic Sir just want to share my thought, the devil use modern problem now to kill HIS people, spiritual warfare is no longer used by the devil. Being good and positive doesn't mean right in biblical worldview, they have could led us to misleading context (devil's way to mislead Eve with a "twist" into his first sin in human history) Believe me the devil really love tricky modern problems like LGBT, abortion, self-love, stoicism, FIRE movement, those things have been made to be 11:12 with the truth and made some confusion as it is positive, but at the same time it is not biblical for me. Well that's my perspective, I respect yours too :) God bless you !
@@juliansihite1289 "while at the same time Stoicism believes to reject the hope as it is uncontrollable element??" not when it comes to God. obviously if we're walking in the spirit, asking things in accordance with his will, he WILL answer. when it comes to outside religious practices though, we should hold n o hope. unlike with God, who actually promises us things, hope over other things is reckless. the ancient stoics weren't Christians.
@@creedatorx439 In reality it's different, most of Stoic people (including Christian stoic people) they depend so much on their mind power and their human wisdom. How can people differentiate how we trust God then we keep our hope, but in stoic mode we will not keep our hope? Believe me Stoic is far more than a framework, methodology, or kind of philosophy. It's a religion now, if you can see now, most of "None" people are Stoic, atheist, agnostic, and etc are Stoic people who depends so much on rationality. While for me the best people are the most balanced one. Who can manage their emotionality and rationality that's what we call "wise mindset". We don't need to kill the "intuitive mind (feeling/emotion)". But we need it to eliminate other things to make the best decision. Being 100% rational people like most of Stoic people doesn't mean it's always good. Stoic doesn't accept any suffering part in life as the art of life, while Jesus accept the "suffering cross" as the victorious part of the life to be processed as human. We Christian people respect suffering, but not for Stoic, they try to ignore it.
@@juliansihite1289 "Stoic doesn't accept any suffering part in life as the art of life, while Jesus accept the "suffering cross" as the victorious part of the life to be processed as human." the stoics, especially Seneca, actually said that one who has never had a single pang in life is unfortunate. the stoics actually agree with going through trial in life, and they actually believe that trial makes us s t r o n g e r . how will we know what we're capable of without trial? "you have won the crown but not the victory" as Seneca says. Seneca taught that "bad" in life c a n make us stronger, if we use it for improvement ofc. "success comes to the common man, and even to the commonplace ability; but to triumph over the calamities and terrors of mortal life is a part of the great man only." - Seneca The stoics agree that trial, "bad", is part of our everyday lives. bad, (things we prefer would never happen) is inevitable. so, if it's inevitable, why fight it? why not just accept it and do what you can? the stoics aren't against trial. if anything, they think it's beneficial. "What stands in the way becomes the way." - Marcus Aurelius "How can people differentiate how we trust God then we keep our hope, but in stoic mode we will not keep our hope?" well, since the stoics weren't christians but pagans, it makes sense that "giving up hope completely" would go against the Christian view. what christian stoics can do here is ONLY HAVE HOPE IN GOD. like I said in the other paragraph, they should have no hope in anything/anyone else except God. since God most surely will answer the believer, why have no hope? but outside sources, such as things and people aren't as trustworthy as God. "Believe me Stoic is far more than a framework, methodology, or kind of philosophy. It's a religion now, if you can see now, most of "None" people are Stoic, atheist, agnostic, and etc are Stoic people who depends so much on rationality." there are many possible truths to this; one: that since Christians have already trusted their meaning in life to God, they don''t have have that much of an urge to go to philosophy. see, philosophy gives meaning to our lives. it guides people, shows people how to truly live. so this is possibly why there's more atheists than christians in philosophy. (also, stoicism was actually used by some early church fathers, like Origen.) it was also accepted quite well by them. just wanted to add that. and literally all three stoics;, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and Epictetus all believed (and taught) that there is a God above all. yes, they believed in pagan Gods, but they also taught that there's one God who created them all, and u s all. (and Epictetus/Seneca taught an early version of "the argument of design" for God. plus, the philosophy isn't a religion. though many take it just as seriously as one, it's just a philosophy. "While for me the best people are the most balanced one. Who can manage their emotionality and rationality that's what we call "wise mindset". We don't need to kill the "intuitive mind (feeling/emotion)". But we need it to eliminate other things to make the best decision. Being 100% rational people like most of Stoic people doesn't mean it's always good." you're right. we don't need to cut off the "intuitive mindset" but it just isn't something we should rely on much. sometimes it can help, but logic is much more reliable. knowing what's outside of our control and what's not, seeing things for what they really are (objectively), and not relying on externals is very helpful. "We Christian people respect suffering, but not for Stoic, they try to ignore it." the stoics respect trial, and they use it for improvement. we do not believe in "giving in" when it comes to pain though. we only use "bad" that happens to us for "good." please consider everything that I've written here, and understand that talk about these matters should be about truth only.
@@creedatorx439 Agree brother, if you said that this a different modified Stoic, then I agree with this. But if we take the complete worldview Stoic, I need to disagree with this. Brother just remember, not all people try to filter all the worldviews like you do, there are some people who absorb everything all the information 100% without filtering with the bible truth. That's what the devil did to Eve as the first hoax in the human history. Remember misleading is always 11:12 with the truth. So, if it is completely wrong, we will aware with that from the start, but if it is 11:12 with the Bible truth, sure we can fall on this devil's "twist" :) God bless you brother !
Should probably change the video title to something else because some might think that you're talking about the historical philosophy of Stoicism, which does not seek to banish all emotion.
burnsport1 I was literally about the post the same comment. stoicism is different than Stoicism. Stoics recognise emotions as legitimate, they just don’t think we should be ruled by them.
iWorship it would be interesting to see Piper do a video consciously and explicitly on Stoic philosophy because I think his opinion of it would be negative.
Stoicism is not the suppression of emotion and framing it as such is extremely dishonest. Rather, it is a philosophy which prepares one to highly effectively deal with emotions and adversity.
Pastor John, your sermons and podcasts are a Godsend. However, I really advice you to change the title of your episode. Stoicism is not toxic. Apathy is Toxic. There are many Christians that see the value of the philosophy of Stoicism, myself included, and a lot of them may dislike this video.
Stoicism literally encourages what the greeks originally called apatheia, which is where the word apathy comes from. Where Aristotle claimed that a balance of emotionality and rationality was the best state of being, stoics advocated apathy and detachment from any emotions that might make them vulnerable.
@@theadumitriu8664 "detachment from vulnerability because it "might" bring them suffering" I am sorry, but this is not true, Stoicism has nothing to do with running from suffering and eradication of vulnerability, as in "no defect" policy. Stoic training admits the faltering nature of life, where one is constantly bombarded with unfavorable and hostile blows, admits the fragile nature of humans. Yet Stoics claim that one must not neglect our agency or fail to take seriously its potential for wisdom, Epictetus insists that despite all the crippling blows, we must constantly push our agency against obstacles and limits. Stoicism is a practical teaching, so keep in mind that there are no certification for "Real Stoic Sage: Reached Apatheia", there is no perfect control or perfect virtue, so Stoicism preaches to those who will be simply moral aspirants, to simple people like us, and just asks to fight a good fight. Also, apatheia = equanimity, simply a state of mind's balance, not extreme indifference.
Actually, Stoicism is a great companion to the message of this video. It would be skeptical of excessive emotions and emotionalism. It would also put dry emotional spells and darker nights in perspective by informing you that this moment isn’t forever and one not need despair of finding a more joyful way again. It would help accept current circumstances as they are in order to calm anxiety and embrace the fact that you aren’t in control of everything. Stoicism doesn’t need to negate belief in Christ, it can greatly enhance and support it.
Actually, apatheia, the greek root word for apathy, was and is one of the main tenets of stoicism. It promotes detachment from emotionality and vulnerability because it might get the person into a situation that could cause suffering. This is an extreme OCD reaction to reality. Christ was surrendered to the will of God to the point of relinquishing control and getting flogged and crucified. He was in no way a stoic. He fully felt and loved, and sacrificed himself fully feeling, not detached from emotion. Pastor John rightly points out the difference between "impulsivity" and feeling/vulnerability. Yes, Christ conquered the lower nature of impulse and selfishness, but he did it fully feeling, not detached from feeling.
@@theadumitriu8664 I think this Wikipedia entry resonates with what I’ve read from Stoic writers: Whereas Aristotle had claimed that virtue was to be found in the golden mean between an excess and a deficiency of emotion (metriopatheia), the Stoics thought that living virtuously provided freedom from the passions, resulting in apatheia. It meant eradicating the tendency to react emotionally or egotistically to external events, the things that cannot be controlled. In that sense, Christ represented this ideal. He did not live wishing things were different, he didn’t regret his mission even ok the cross, and as he was faced with his ‘destiny’ so to speak, in the garden, he embraced it fully by putting his own will and human desire for self preservation aside.
@@theadumitriu8664 I think you are warping the stoic model by simply reducing it to the "evasion of potential suffering via inactivity and indifference", while Stoicism is about remaining virtuous despite all that life throws at us, which demands being active, and to have preferences even for those things that are fundamentally indifferent in regards to the one's potential for happiness. Apatheia has a different meaning than apathy (which is essentially complete indifference), it translates to equanimity, which is stability of the mind, apatheia is a state of being not affected by passions.
@@disposablehero1235 Jesus was in control. It was an intentional act. There are many things that are violent yet emotions are under control and actions are intentional. Pretty much any sport is that way. Look at seal team 6 when they killed bin laden. 100% violent. 100% in control
@@fcchannel6162 yes indeed. Question everything you have been told and taught, draw conclusions and reasoning to see if an idea, belief or philosophy fits your life. Be able to determine the outlooks of all things: Even if you're in school, job field, religious backgrounds, any political movement you are associated with.
I believe philosophical Stoicism is more about getting the correct perspective of a situation in able for the person not to be emotionally overwhelmed.
The main tenet of stoicism, apatheia(greek) literally means a lack of passion/feeling. Stoicism is about control, Christ is about trust/faith and surrendering to your higher nature.
@@dmitryolefir8503 Can you show me a factual basis of this? Both modern day and ancient meaning of the word means a lack of passion/zeal/emotion. A - pathos(passion) literally means without emotion. Now I understand the necessity of overcoming base instincts, selfish desires and fear, envy, over-attachment, but apatheia is in no way achieving a balanced state. It goes to the other extreme where it tries to control all of the emotions to the point where even joy or zeal is seen as non optimal and the ideal state is “contentment”. Stoicism is in this regard very similar to Buddhism in that it is a philosophy of emotional detachment. I appreciate that the premise is that our Reason should and must trump our base, animal nature, but I don’t see how that can realistically and honestly be achieved through apathy.
@@dmitryolefir8503 Self Discipline over one’s mind has nothing to do with apathy. Unless you think becoming a psychopath is an ideal way to go through life, not caring and not feeling through obstacles or adversity.
@@theadumitriu8664 All your arguments are based on a wrong translation. "Self Discipline over one’s mind has nothing to do with apathy" It is true. "Both modern day and ancient meaning of the word means a lack of passion/zeal/emotion" and this is not true, Apatheia, is not the same thing as apathy. You may start with the following source: iep.utm.edu/stoicism/#H4 , and with the corresponding wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheia. One of the pictures under the first link gives a pretty good understanding of the term.
I want to first thank you for the time and effort you put into this video. However, I want to point out one issue with the title and the content of the video. By naming the video as you have and then talking about the toxicity of being emotionless--which is unnatural because the Logos did not mold us to be emotionless--creates a false impression. Stoicism--in the philosophical sense--does not teach the suppression of emotions. Rather, it teaches that we should cognitively distance ourselves from the proto-passion--or the initial, animal response to an external impression--so that we may examine it and determine the course of action that is most rationally virtuous. Furthermore, it divides emotions into two categories. Good emotions--such as love, joy, and eudaimonia--and bad emotions--such as lust, envy, jealousy, anger and hate. What has caused stoic to be synonymous with emotionlessness is the doctrine of indifference. However, what the philosophy teaches is that we can only control our thoughts and actions. With everything else that is not under my control to be indifferent to it. Or, understand that the Logos has caused this for a reason and that the only rational course of action is to simply accept it and focus our attention on what we can control. Imo, this is similar to saying that "Event X is God's will." If you say that can you be enraged by an insult? Or, broken down by a loss? To be perfectly honest, I think the word Stoic was capitalized with the intent of respect and/or familiarity for the audience--as one of the apostles did interact with Stoics in the book of Acts. Either way, I just wanted to inform you and the audience of the misperception between the colloquial usage of stoic and the philosophy Stoicism. Also, Stoicism and Christianity are not entirely incompatible. Franciscan monks would read Epictetus' Enchiridion they simply changed any reference to nature, Logos, universal reason, Zues, etc to God. The ethical teachings of Stoicism are non-theistic in nature the essence of which is encapsulated in the Serenity Pray. Have a wonderful day and may Fortune favor you.
First of all amazing, your criticism was on point. Can you recommend me any books or other scholarly sources from which I can get more information regarding the subject?
@Neo Sorry brother but that is such a dumb answer, Meditations was written as a Journal from a practicing stoic. Not as a manifesto. In that case I would’ve read the Echiridion. But I have asked for scholarly sources not primary sources.
No mention of stoicism. The stoics seek to control undesirable emotions (rage, jealousy, hatred) in order to experience the enjoyable emotions (gratitude, contentment, happiness)
I don’t think he means this as the philosophy subject. If he did, he thought he could just bullshit his way through this, because he doesn’t even lay out what Stoicism is. He’s using scriptures to make an argument against an evil that doesn’t exist in stoicism, which is a classic go-to mainstream Christian media method and is clearly an argument for stoicism - managing emotions but not suppressing them, reason and research. I agree that emotionless churches aren’t great, they can be places of loneliness and isolation, but I’ve been far more wounded in over emotional emotional vs mind driven churches where the irrational is accepted by anyone with a microphone.
Pastor John, do you know about a Socratic Philosophy named as Stoicism? What you talk about is not the Philosophy of Stoicism, but the adjective word stoicism.
Jesus faced his death in complete stoicism. That doesn't mean he didn't feel. Or didn't have emotion. He accepted his situation as bleak as it was. He stood there, when he new he was going to due and carried his cross. The man had dignity. I am an Agnostic and can see that. I don't think you quite understand your own religion.
Jesus Christ was not a stoic. He didn't believe in the false god of pantheism or natural law, or in an infinitely old universe. He didn't believe in control of your emotions and life; rather, he preached that we are to give control to God and be transformed through His perfect character.
@@valthiriansunstrider2540 Just switch out the word "God" for Nature and "Heaven" for "Telos/Eudaemonia" and if it's not a Stoic you've got, it's pretty damn close!
I am forever grateful to reason for removing the scales from my eyes to see this superstition for the manipulative nonsense it is. I have just discovered Stoicism 16 years after leaving the church and reasoning myself to its principles on my own. Calling it "toxic" when it is apparently one of the major founding philosophies of the early church is exactly the kind of irrationality I could not abide.
If there is one thing that this would does NOT need is more emotions. Look around. Get real. We need more self-control. Read the bible and note how many time the subject of self-control comes up. It's almost non-stop in the Bible.
Practicing Stoic here. Stoicism is about emotional domestication, not emotional suppression. Stoicism encourages people to work through their emotions, to take a breath and see what they're about and where they came from. In this way, emotions can be listened to without letting them take over actions in the moment. Also, pastor John didn't mention stoicism once, so this title is misleading.
No offence but I found a few problems with this. Firstly, pastor John establishes that emotion should be based on truth and not disconnected with the truth ie. Negative cognition. He also says equally as bad is a lack of emotion . Basically he argues against cognitive dissonance ( inconsistency of emotion with thoughts or reality ). Now stoic doctrines hold the truth as a high importance, a virtue. If this for one individual means his personal belief in God as a truth then this should legitimize his emotions accordingly. And this is stoicism. The doctrine of understanding what is within and outside your control including your beliefs. So why is stoicism regarded throughout as being a lack of emotion or an absence of faith? And why is the parallel drawn between "high faith leads to low emotion" who is saying or doing this? Look at Isis or the black community both celebrate or exercise faith in extrovert obnoxious manners. Stoicism is not SPOCK. It's not a lack of emotion or toxic. Read more on an ancient philosophy before critiquing it unjustly.
To get all worked up over sonething you have no control over is insane. Better to be indifferent about the externals. Jesus said, lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth where moth and rust corrupts and thrives break in and steal. He also says unless you hate father and mother and tour own life, you are not worthy of me. Jesus is the archetypal Stoic. When he was arrested, Pilate asked why he doesn't defend himself, why doesn't he answer his questions, "don't you know I have power to free you or to have you crucified?" Jesus said, "you have no power accept what is given of God." Jesus didn't trust worldly wealth, fame, or power, but only to seek to do God's will. Pilate asked if he was a king, since the Jewish leaders accused him that he makes himself a king. Jesus said, "my kingdom is not of this world. To this end was I born." Jesus is the Logos. The embodiment of all that is Stoicism. The King of kings, there is no one greater that Jesus, and He says, my Father is greater than I. Just read His words and draw your own conclusions.
It could be argued that Jesus is a Stoic philosopher. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Take up your cross and follow me. Lord take this cup but not my will but your will be done. These are a couple examples of Jesus teaching fundamental Stoicism.
Numbers 32 "So the Lord’s anger was aroused on that day, and He swore an oath, saying, 11‘Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not wholly followed Me John 11:34-37 34 And He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, “See how He loved him!” 37 And some of them said, “Could not this Man, who opened the eyes of the blind, also have kept this man from dying?” Matthew 21 12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ” Numbers 22:22 22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. He certainly wasn't a stoic. It's dangerous to attempt to define the creator by the limited mental capacity of men and their philosophies. When we do so, we create a different god in our imaginations and begin worshipping that false god. Be become idolaters being bound for hell. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone [e]cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Our emotions and wills should be disciplined through the power of God, the holy spirit and not through our own efforts lest pride abound in our fallen flesh.
You don’t understand the Stoics. I’m ok with that. I’m not an emotional void. What I can say is while every bit of advise I got from the Bible didn’t drag me out of my depression the way the Stoics did. It was a last resort for me. Had my plan to end it. Decided after the Bible not working I’d do the Stoic thing and slowly every day I crawled out. No old me would try to change your mind and feel sad when it didn’t work. Today me is ok with you writing a book and I won’t feel guilty for not reading it. You should try it.
@fuji302 You don't understand the word of God and likely never did. Seeking the advice of man philosophy instead. (I blame the institutional church system that that's in place. This own youtube channel is apart of it but I'll just tell you look up Servus Christi- John Piper if you want to know why specifically I say this channel) That's all there is to it. You said Jesus (who is the creator) could be argued as being stoic. Limiting him to man's philosophy. He never tells us to endure through our own will and mind but through him. King David endured hardship not through his own philosophy or thinking but by the strength of God. Job endured not because of his own ability but because of God. Paul looked to Christ for hope where he lacked the ability. Even Jesus prayed to the father (Who is still God 3 persons. Arguing about the trinity is a bit beyond scope of comment) The god of this world desires for you to seek your own efforts to save you. The most High God wants you to rely on him. All there is to it.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word." (logos!) John tries to appeal to pagan philosophy at the times. With Christ being the "incarnation" of logos. In fact Christ was the perfect Stoic, if you will. He knew he was gonna be crucified (John chapter 2), and how he behaved knowing that. As Christians though we reject the "kosmos", the wordly order. With the world not being per se evil. (It was created by God and it was good. Genesis 1). But we reject the wordly order and strive for the divine order ("logos").
@@crazyr605 It is a shame you know so little about the Stoicism, I would suggest reading something on the topic, I am sure you will notice, that stoicism has nothing to do with inactivity.
Christians are in a weak position by having their happiness dependent on an external source , Jesus. I believe it's an incorrect interpretation. Jesus teaches that the holy Spirit is within each of us. Stoics understood this with the idea that each individual is part of the logos, or gods creation based in logic and reason.
Advice: change the capital S to a lower-case s. That should deal with the confusion with Stoicism. If you disagree, check any dictionary. Great talk otherwise!
Change the title. This isn’t about stoicism. You’re referring to the cheap use of the word for non-emotion. True Stoicism concerns wisdom, courage, virtue, self discipline, and says these things make a happy and smooth flowing life. This is the immediate happiness for which the stoic feels affection, gratefulness, and joy (emotion). Not his health, wealth, reputation, but a life rightly lived. To do right is the highest deepest and most central pleasure of the stoic, not for the health wealth etc, but for the right act itself.
Should probably change the video title to something else because some might think that you're talking about the historical philosophy of Stoicism, which does not seek to banish all emotion. x2
Also Christianity fitted VERY WELL with paganphilosophies at the times. (God did it.) It didn't took Europe by (a perfect) storm as this "alien" religion. It was very compatible. Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, because their view of a Messiah was concerned on the temporal world. A political/military figure/leader fixing their "kosmos" (living under Roman occupation). But they didn't expect a Messiah in the "logos". PS: To me Stoicism is not about rejecting emotions or being a psychopath with no emotions. Emotions are important signs often. And emotions are *AS IS*, I like to say. But trying not to act upon emotions and resisting vices and temptation is very Christian, ...and very stoic. Of course we reject "work salvation", and we have the Holy Spirit to guide and to help us. Credit where credit's due. But many stoic concepts are compatible with Christianity. Maybe view of cause(s) and interpretations surely differ.
How can you speak about truth? Truth is what you go find; you are always open to being shown differently and attach only to reason and scientific judgement. You speak of truth and adore a legend created by a Roman emperor. You might as well believe in Spider-Man. And I wouldn’t have anything against you if you were not always so prone to make non-believers burn at the stake.
You clearly have no idea about Stoicism. It isn't about lack of emotions but ruling them with logic so that they don't enslave you to your desires or fears.
The way this is presented is not stoic at all. To be truly stoic, all you are trying to do is acknowledge what emotion you are currently feeling at any given moment. Never is it taught in any stoic teaching to become emotionless. That's impossible to do anyway. Don’t repress your feelings, reframe them, and react accordingly. It's kind of like asking what would Jesus do before you react. Stoics seek to use logic and reason. This video is a misrepresentation
John as always can be very wordy. The title makes no sense for this video. Stoicism is not about having no emotions. Not having any emotions or desires is more of a buddhist belief/goal.
gotta beware of the lifers with nothing to lose though. Watching it all crumble might be the whole point of the charade organization to begin with, the Joker is not a supervillan boss that cares for your workplace benefits in the long run I'd assume.
Stoicism pre-dates Christianity and has some of the best elements of what would later become the Christian faith. It is not the absence of emotion. It simply means that when life throws you a hardball, you take it like a man. "Toxic"? Lol. Maybe you should go back to your knitting class my friend.
Gospel delivered by the ignorant. Epictetus, Aurelius, Zeno, Seneca never said anything about not having emotions. The evolution of the English language is playing tricks on you.
Did the pastor accept/give approval for the title for the video? If so, would have been good to actually mention stoicism in the video. Clickbait, manipulative, cowardly or something else better I hope.
Shame on you. Even I you had a clue about Stoicism: confusing the fruits of The Spirit with the emotions of the flesh which Sroicism seeks to stamp out.
