Would forum atheists given to denouncing the Bible as just a load of ancient writings and worth less for being declare Stoicism as the same or, continue in a state of HUMBUG and HYPOCRISY ?
This appears to be less of a thread about the avoidance of humbug and more about the avoidance of intelligibility. Parsing what I think you mean - and feel free to try to explain further if I've misunderstood - but you seem to be suggesting that people who are dismissive of a collection of fairy tales and moral precepts (i.e. the Bible) as just a product of their time should be equally dismissive of the works of Stoicism.
The problem is that, whilst the works of stoicism start from an expressed core set of principles (wisdom, moral courage, moderation and justice), for which attempts at justification are documented, the Bible comes across as just a list of explicit behavioural expectations with an assertion of moral value but little to no moral justification - 'God wants it' is not a moral argument, it's just an attempt at creating an absolutely unaccountable authoritarianism.
The early writings of Stoicism are a set of principles - which can be questioned or argued - whilst the Bible is a set of expectations. Principles can be interpreted in a new context, but explicit instructions devoid of any basis either apply or they don't.
That's why people dismissing the Bible as an artefact of its time have a case whereas it's less applicable to the works of the Stoics - of course, you're welcome to try and make the case if you wish, but that doesn't seem an unreasonable differentiation to me.
O.
