I prefer Gnostic, they seem spirital, intellectual and saintly. Agnostics seem to be just argumentive.
2006-08-04 22:52:15 · 4 answers · asked by Sean 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Makes me wonder why anyone would claim to be agnostic, admitting ignorance. Even though intellectuals can see ignorance in people, I've never known one to admit it. Seems to go against human nature.
2006-08-04 23:21:15 · update #1
The 2 are almost opposites, not the same. Gnostic refers to a SECOND CENTURY apostasy, the origin being that they claimed a "special knowledge" which was not part of the revelation of Jesus (in the broad sense, not the book) and claimed that the body and soul were separate so nothing the body did affected the soul, thus libertines. I stressed second century because it is often claimed that portions of the New Testament were written to combat their teachings, but they didn't exist at the time of its writing.
An agnostic, literally translated "without knowledge" is someone who believes you CANNOT KNOW about the nature or existence of God.
... to your comment about ignorance, see CANNOT KNOW above. While the word means without knowledge, it is a belief system which opposes all faiths on the basis that the subject cannot be proven.
2006-08-04 23:10:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 23⤊ 2⤋
I don't think a valid comparison can be made equating the two.
Gnostics follow a modified form of Christianity.
Agnostics boast about their ignorance. (agnostic literally translates as "ignorant" or lacking knowledge)
2006-08-04 22:58:40 · answer #2 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agnostics are just people who can't or won't make up their mind either way whether or not they share the theists belief in god/gods, they simply don't know whether they are Arthur or Martha on this subject.
2006-08-04 23:22:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they're not! =0P
2006-08-04 22:57:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋