Chrysippus was the third leader of the school of Stoicism, after Zeno and Cleanthes. It's said that he died while laughing at his own joke. It seems he made the joke after drinking unmixed wine, and that it related to a donkey eating, or trying to eat, figs from a tree. Chrysippus supposedly suggested the donkey be given wine to wash down the figs.
Perhaps this is humorous when rendered in ancient Greek, or perhaps you had to be there, as drunk as Chrysippus is said to have been. Or, perhaps, the story is apocryphal. I think it's most likely he died in some other manner, though I admit that the thought of a renowned Stoic philosopher dying while laughing at his own joke has a certain appeal.
I think the story shows Chrysippus to be human, even endearingly so given his reputation as the rigorous thinker who gave Stoicism a firm, rational foundation shorn of the vagaries indulged in by Cleanthes, an inspiring but, it seems, "warm and fuzzy" kind of thinker. Chrysippus is credited with developing the tools by which Stoics could defend their philosophy from followers of rival schools, quick to chop logic and split hairs in the rough and tumble world of the philosophers of Athens and their students.
The quote of Chrysippus at the head of this post is one that interests me, as it addresses more or less directly what I think is an issue in Stoicism which isn't addressed much in the popular interest in Stoicism which we see these days. Some modern proponents of it who take it more seriously, I think, than those who claim it will make us better capitalists or better something or other in a Dale Carnegie fashion and so should be ignored, feel that God need have no place in it. Think of Lawrence Becker or Massimo Pigliucci. To a certain extent I think they're correct. The Epicureans thought of God or the gods as existing but largely irrelevant. We may look on Stoicism as a source of practical wisdom without considering the ancient Stoics conception of the deity based solely on the fact that it's directives regarding attaining tranquility are effective.
But it seems clear that the ancient Stoics accepted a God of sorts, and why they did so and what sort of God it was/is are legitimate avenues of exploration. It seems that there are few exploring them, though, at least to the extent that can be judged by what is readily available on these subjects. I'm currently reading Roman Stoicism by Edward Vernon Arnold, and its seem based on what I've read so far that he intends to explore them, but what I've read has involved a rather breezy discussion and comparison of Stoicism and other religious or quasi-religious movements of antiquity that hasn't (yet) been very enlightening.
I was told by someone on a philosophy forum that a God which isn't personal, which doesn't respond to prayers and petitions and doesn't intervene in our lives and the world is less reasonable than a God which is and does those things. That isn't at all clear to me, but it may be that more people would find such a personal God more desirable than an impersonal God. A more desirable (to us) God isn't necessarily reasonable, though.
The God of Stoicism doesn't seem to be a personal God if such a God watches over us (noting and judging our deeds and thoughts), responds to our prayers and petitions, works miracles by altering nature and punishes or rewards us based on our conduct and intentions. The God of Stoicism isn't Big Daddy, which is what the God of an Abrahamic religion appears to be. If the universe is God, or God is immanent in the Universe and the creative and intelligent spirit which infuses it, what we may think is contra mundum is necessarily contrary to God. Earthquakes and natural disasters are not evils, and God, being the universe in which such things take place, isn't going to alter the universe to assure such things don't take place no matter how much we beg and plead.
As may be expected, then, by living "in accordance with nature" we live in accordance with God. If we fail to do so, however, the God of Stoicism doesn't punish us as would Big Daddy or his equivalent. What results is bad for us in the sense that it disturbs us, makes us anxious, slaves to our passions, discontented, miserable, covetous, murderous, but not as a result of any action on the part of God/Universe.
If this is the God of Stoicism, leaving aside the question whether it makes any difference, is this God one we would think to be good? Does it inspire reverence, joy, bliss, awe, love and all the other feelings we associate with God, traditionally and typically? If it does, how and why? If it doesn't, can it be considered God?
