Pagan Solstice celebrations (no spam)

[fable]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
I've frequently wondered about this.

Do you feel that perhaps many (not all) women turn to Wicca not from any heartfelt spiritual belief, but from a desire/need to find power and a voice they never had? Last I heard (about three years ago I guess), Wicca was spreading especially rapidly among young adolescent and teenage girls. IMO that's the right age to be looking for a way to be heard in the world and to be in control of one's own life, and the "magic spells" of witchcraft may appear to be an answer to many young women of that age group. What do you think?...

I think this is exactly the wrong reason to turn to Wicca. After all, it's a religion, not an expression of politics. But there is a very vocal if small group whose leaders have promoted such an agenda since the 1970s, when Wicca first began really putting down roots in the US. These people are shrill and always looking for new members. That's the opposite of the way genuine Wiccans are: retiring, practicing their religion among themselves, not trying to draw attention and certainly not trying to recruit.

I have no problem with these people doing what they want. I just object to them turning my religion into a staging ground for their efforts, and reversing its tenets which are supposed to be completely above such matters as discrimination.

As far as getting a lot of young women to join: I can't say that there's been a great spread of Wicca among that group. Probably the media, always out for the headline-grabbing story, has exaggerated both the kind of person being drawn to Wicca, and the sheer numbers (these zealots, like so many others, want to look as powerful as possible, and exaggerating numbers is one way to accomplish this). I do know that numbers of genuine Wiccan groups are increasing, but they usually don't advertise or talk to the media about their beliefs.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
I think this is exactly the wrong reason to turn to Wicca. After all, it's a religion, not an expression of politics. But there is a very vocal if small group whose leaders have promoted such an agenda since the 1970s, when Wicca first began really putting down roots in the US. These people are shrill and always looking for new members. That's the opposite of the way genuine Wiccans are: retiring, practicing their religion among themselves, not trying to draw attention and certainly not trying to recruit.

I have no problem with these people doing what they want. I just object to them turning my religion into a staging ground for their efforts, and reversing its tenets which are supposed to be completely above such matters as discrimination.

As far as getting a lot of young women to join: I can't say that there's been a great spread of Wicca among that group. Probably the media, always out for the headline-grabbing story, has exaggerated both the kind of person being drawn to Wicca, and the sheer numbers (these zealots, like so many others, want to look as powerful as possible, and exaggerating numbers is one way to accomplish this). I do know that numbers of genuine Wiccan groups are increasing, but they usually don't advertise or talk to the media about their beliefs.

There is something about the Pagan religions which have always apealed to me as a female though. You must remember, I grew up loosely Christian in my beliefs, so as an adult, when I began to study the Church teachings in earnest, I was taken aback at how oppressive it was toward women. As I studied the history of religion, adn comparative studies of world religions, I was impressed at the respect the Pagans accorded women. The balance between male and female forces of nature as embraced by all of teh earth religions draws me to them. I would say this is the reason that, while I follow Christ, I am hesitant to classify myself along with the term "Christian" as IMHO, the term has come to incorporate many of the Pauline teachings which I feel had little to do with the messages of Christ, and more to do with the social climate of the times. Upon that platform, women have yet to recover from all of the oppressive ideas of the middle ages.

I do agree with you though, that this reverse discrimination you describe smacks of "Get evenism" and has no place in religion

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by fable
I just object to them turning my religion into a staging ground for their efforts, and reversing its tenets which are supposed to be completely above such matters as discrimination.

Hmmm...that's just how I feel about Christianity


@Scayde: Have you ever thought about looking into the Celtic aspect of Christian spirituality? IMO, the problem most people have with Christianity is about Rome, not about the religion itself. The Celtic form of Christianity accorded women a lot more respect then the Roman "version", if you will. St. Brigid was actually ordained as a bishop, though admittedly that was exceedingly rare...It's been pretty well-established that abbesses heard confessions and on occasion even said Mass. There were celibate monks but also married clergy, and many monasteries (such as the one Bridget presided over) had both men and women. Relations with Rome were there, but quite loose, and the Celtic church had a great deal of autonomy. Later, Rome sent a delegation to demand subservience and conformity.

It's a spirituality I find very enriching and deeply beautiful. Worth looking into

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
There is something about the Pagan religions which have always apealed to me as a female though. You must remember, I grew up loosely Christian in my beliefs, so as an adult, when I began to study the Church teachings in earnest, I was taken aback at how oppressive it was toward women. As I studied the history of religion, adn comparative studies of world religions, I was impressed at the respect the Pagans accorded women. The balance between male and female forces of nature as embraced by all of teh earth religions draws me to them. (

I'd agree: that's one of the nicer aspects about most pagan religions: the lack of sexual bias. The Dianic Wiccan groups, unfortunately, create a kind of inverse-Catholicism, by women and for women, worshipping a goddess alone.

The Wiccan groups I've belonged to after my initial exposure to the religion (and the ones I've started) have all been "dual aspect," as we call it. That's to say, a Goddess and a God, or God and Goddess (pick a card ). Harmony is essential, and the balance of forces is essential for worship, as I see it. Others, of course, will disagree.

Fwiw, I get just as upset about Christian denominations that are male-dominated. I can see how people brought up in a particular religious tradition might be blinded to this bigotry, but it's intolerable, IMO. As well believe that some deity is automatically white--but then, there are Christian churches around who do believe just that.

[Der-draigen]

History shows that pagan religions were not always and automatically respectful of women, however. The Greeks, for example, were pagan; and their culture was one of the most horrifically patriarchal on the face of the earth. Greek women had no rights at all, and were treated and looked upon as third-class citizens. In fact, it was the early Christian church that started to accord women greater respect and more rights than they had ever previously known in that part of the world. This is why so many women converted to Christianity, including women of some infulence in the Roman world. Many a fledgling persecution against Christians was stopped by the influence of governors' sympathetic wives. There are a few stories of the Desert Fathers even accepting women's advice and guidance, treating them as real equals and friends.

As I said above -- the early Irish church was very respectful of women. Grant you, they had been pagan; but their culture was such that women's rights were not automatically stamped down when Christianity came to the country. That happened when Rome placed its implacable boot on the Celtic neck. Roman culture had never accorded women an over-abundance of rights, either.

The very vast majority of the anti-woman polemic which rightly disturbs so many people comes from Roman Church writings toward the end of the Roman Empire, and from medieval texts written under the influence of the Roman church.

If anyone wants to find out Jesus' own attitude toward women, one has only to read the Gospel of Luke, or (shorter ) John chapter 4, verses 4-42. In the latter passage, Jesus engages in a deep theological discussion with a woman (a situation absolutely unheard of and marveled at by His own disciples), and this woman is actually portrayed as an apostle. Her apostolic status is extremely clear from the original Greek text; yet Rome maintains that women were not chosen as apostles and thus cannot serve God as priests and ministers of the sacraments.

Like I said above -- I don't think people have a problem with Christianity, I think the problem is -- and always has been -- with Rome and its religious imperialism.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Hmmm...that's just how I feel about Christianity


@Scayde: Have you ever thought about looking into the Celtic aspect of Christian spirituality? IMO, the problem most people have with Christianity is about Rome, not about the religion itself. The Celtic form of Christianity accorded women a lot more respect then the Roman "version", if you will. St. Brigid was actually ordained as a bishop, though admittedly that was exceedingly rare...It's been pretty well-established that abbesses heard confessions and on occasion even said Mass. There were celibate monks but also married clergy, and many monasteries (such as the one Bridget presided over) had both men and women. Relations with Rome were there, but quite loose, and the Celtic church had a great deal of autonomy. Later, Rome sent a delegation to demand subservience and conformity.

It's a spirituality I find very enriching and deeply beautiful. Worth looking into

Yes I have, and if there were a congregation near here that followed those tenents, I would love to participate.I wouold feel very much at home, unfortunately, like fable, I am constrained to practice my faith here at home, due to lack of like minded believers in my imediate area...here in Texas, the Church is very fundamental...even the Catholic adn Lutheran churches very closely resemble the Baptist version of Christianity

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by Scayde
Yes I have, and if there were a congregation near here that followed those tenents, I would love to participate.I wouold feel very much at home, unfortunately, like fable, I am constrained to practice my faith here at home, due to lack of like minded believers in my imediate area...here in Texas, the Church is very fundamental...even the Catholic adn Lutheran churches very closely resemble the Baptist version of Christianity

Look up "Celtic Chrisitanity" online and see if you can find any groups in your area. Perhaps a group that meets in each others' homes, or some such. Things change all the time; you may be surprised at what you find. Heck, maybe you could even start one

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Look up "Celtic Chrisitanity" online and see if you can find any groups in your area. Perhaps a group that meets in each others' homes, or some such. Things change all the time; you may be surprised at what you find. Heck, maybe you could even start one

What a great idea.....thanks DD..*HUG*

[Der-draigen]

No prob

If I find anything in my own searches I'll let you know

[Scayde]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
If anyone wants to find out Jesus' own attitude toward women, one has only to read the Gospel of Luke, or (shorter ) John chapter 4, verses 4-42. In the latter passage, Jesus engages in a deep theological discussion with a woman (a situation absolutely unheard of and marveled at by His own disciples), and this woman is actually portrayed as an apostle. Her apostolic status is extremely clear from the original Greek text; yet Rome maintains that women were not chosen as apostles and thus cannot serve God as priests and ministers of the sacraments.

You hit the nail on the head perfectly here DD...as I said earlier.I am a follower of Christ and his teachings......it is the distortion that occured in the "Church" after his death that I have a problem with. The Roman adn by default Protestant Christian churches have many things about their teachings which I cannot identify with. However, when yu strip away everything but what Christ himself tought, it is a beautiful and liberating message

[fable]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
History shows that pagan religions were not always and automatically respectful of women, however. The Greeks, for example, were pagan; and their culture was one of the most horrifically patriarchal on the face of the earth.

When I write, "'That's one of the nicer aspects about most pagan religions: the lack of sexual bias," I mean today, not in the past, because "paganism" as such did not exist before Christianity become the dominant religion. The term itself only came into being with Christianity, as a derogatory term for non-Christians. We use it today as if to say to the Christians, "Yes, we are. So what?"

The Myceneans, who pulled down a sort of "dark age" over Ancient Greece, after the Minoan civilization's collapse, were extremely patriarchal, but they weren't what I would call pagan. There were no generalized syncretic religion, as there is now in the West, but a series of mostly regional gods and goddesses. Each had their own prescribed rituals and places of worship. If we call them pagan, we might be correctly telling people they were non-Judeo-Christian, but they might also infer that these ancient Greeks were syncretists who mixed "a little of everything" like many pagans do today.

That said, I don't think pre-Judeo-Christian religions can be lambasted for "patriarchalism," anymore than, as you rightly point out, Christianity can. It's a matter of culture. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all began in extremely patriarchal societies. As the religions have moved away from their base, they have adjusted in differing degrees and places to the changes they've found. Reformed Judaism permits female rabbis, where Orthodox Judaism doesn't even allow women to sit on the same side of a congregation as the men. There are female Methodist ministers, while there are no female RCC or Othodox Christian priests.

As I said above -- the early Irish church was very respectful of women. Grant you, they had been pagan; but their culture was such that women's rights were not automatically stamped down when Christianity came to the country. That happened when Rome placed its implacable boot on the Celtic neck.

You clearly know much about this. Where, in your opinion, does the extreme male/female dichotomy in Ireland derive from? By that, I mean the way in which quite a few of the men and women of the country seem to regard the other sex as another race, and not a very pleasant one. I've seen it in Irish films, literature, drama, poetry, and in the attitudes of my brother-in-law, third-generation Irish, who seems to be always sneering at and making fun of "female" characteristics which belong entirely to his own stereotypes. I find this wariness of the other sex even in the pre-Christian folklore, so I can't believe it just came over with the RCC.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by fable
The Myceneans, who pulled down a sort of "dark age" over Ancient Greece, after the Minoan civilization's collapse, were extremely patriarchal, but they weren't what I would call pagan. There were no generalized syncretic religion, as there is now in the West, but a series of mostly regional gods and goddesses. Each had their own prescribed rituals and places of worship. If we call them pagan, we might be correctly telling people they were non-Judeo-Christian, but they might also infer that these ancient Greeks were syncretists who mixed "a little of everything" like many pagans do today.

I guess it comes down to how one would define "pagan" then...I just apply the term to pre-Christian religions as well, for ease of reference. But this is an interesting point...

That said, I don't think pre-Judeo-Christian religions can be lambasted for "patriarchalism," anymore than, as you rightly point out, Christianity can. It's a matter of culture.

Absolutely. Culture has everything to do with it. Many people these days, though, seem to have this mistaken idea that pre-Christian religions were automatically and idealistically feminist. This goes back to what I was saying before about women seeking power and control in a male-oriented and -dominated world: women can't find their own empowerment (for lack of a better word) in this day, age, culture, etc.; so they go looking for it in the past and come up with no more than dreams and imaginings of what used to be.

Where, in your opinion, does the extreme male/female dichotomy in Ireland derive from? By that, I mean the way in which quite a few of the men and women of the country seem to regard the other sex as another race, and not a very pleasant one. I've seen it in Irish films, literature, drama, poetry, and in the attitudes of my brother-in-law, third-generation Irish, who seems to be always sneering at and making fun of "female" characteristics which belong entirely to his own stereotypes. I find this wariness of the other sex even in the pre-Christian folklore, so I can't believe it just came over with the RCC.

You bring up an interesting point...I do know that there was a point in Ireland when the people just started getting beaten down and their spirit was totally crushed -- it started with Roman interference and was brought to ghastly fruition with England's increasing and ruthless hold on the country. A lot of people might laugh at this, but I think the potato famine had a lot to do with it too...In addition, the Irish Catholics were persecuted literally to death in the 18th and 19th centuries. Just as an example: Lots of people tend to notice that in many RCC churches, nobody sings the entire hymn. Only one or two verses. NEVER the last verse. This came from Ireland, where if worshippers were heard singing their homes would be stormed and everyone would be either jailed or outright killed on the spot. Now these things happened a little over a hundred years ago; but to the Irish, even a thousand years are like last week. They're a lot like the Jews in this way -- they possess a kind of collective personal memory of their people's past. The Irish spirit was always prone to melancholy to begin with, and then it was choked and trampled so badly, it never really or fully recovered. Maybe that has something to do with it -- the Irish search for identity, turned into a veil over understanding...

Did you know that Ireland has the highest suicide rate of any other country in the world?

Happily though, I remember reading an article in a Boston magazine, saying the "new Irish generation's" attitude was something like, "Yeah, the potato famine happened. Get over it."

[fable]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Did you know that Ireland has the highest suicide rate of any other country in the world?

I was surprised to read this here, because my wife and I have traveled twice for long stays to Hungary. We were under the impression that the melancholy Magyars were the most suicide-prone nation in Europe. I did a quick scan via the Web, and came up with the following figures, for 1994:

Ireland: 8.41 suicides per 100,000
Hungary: 35.38 suicides per 100,000
Estonia: 40.95 suicides per 100,000

This makes it sound like the Estonians are really the leaders of that particular pack, if anybody's left to do the counting after the frenzy is over.

On another matter, I didn't know that about RCC churches in Ireland: fascinating. Thanks for passing that along. Your point about nationalities possessing a kind of "group memory" is a very good one. Hard as it is for urban populations to believe it, historical myths are taught in many cultures, continuing the attitudes and feuds of the past. Rebecca West's Black Lamb and Grey Falcon is among my favorite reads: a book that shows the ancestral memories which keep ethnic hatred alive in the volatile area of the former Yugoslavia.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by Scayde
I think the key part here is just as you quoted "No other gods before me" I have read and re-read the bible in many different translations and have yet to find where it is said There are no other gods. Rather the opposite. It has been my experience in my studies that both the Torah, and the Talmud, as well as the New Testament acknowledge that other gods do in fact exist.

Sorry, I know this is an old post, but I'm kind of catching up on past posts

You're right, but only to a certain extent. Before the Babylonian exile (around 580 BC, I can't remember dates so that's an approximation ), the Hebrew people did indeed believe that other gods existed, theirs was just the best one. As could be expected, when they were taken into exile they began to question this belief. "Our God can't be the best, because He was defeated by the Babylonian gods." So naturally they turned to the worship of those Babylonian gods. Well, of course the scribes (teachers) couldn't let that stand; so in order to preserve the Jewish faith, culture, and heritage, and in an attempt to arrive at a coherent explanation as to why the exile had happened, they began to formulate, define, and solidify the doctrine of only One God existing at all. Amazingly, it worked, for the most part. So Jewish monotheism only dates back to about the 6th/7th/8th centuries BC. When you take the vast scope of Jewish history into consideration, that's actually quite recent

There are PLENTY of passages in both Old and New Testaments that proclaim there is only one God. For example: Deuteronomy 4:35; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:8, 45:5, and 46:9; Joel 2:27; Mark 12:32 . After all, the great statement of Jewish monotheism is this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is Lord alone" (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; also sometimes translated as "the Lord your God is one God". The meaning is the same though: "the one and only".). This is repeated in the Gospel passage cited above. As for the rest of the NT, St. Paul does talk about sacrificing to idols, etc.; but they are most assuredly not portrayed as gods, they are portrayed as spirits; and deceitful ones at that. By the time Christianity came around, the Jewish docrtine of only one God had long been firmly established.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by fable
I was surprised to read this here, because my wife and I have traveled twice for long stays to Hungary. We were under the impression that the melancholy Magyars were the most suicide-prone nation in Europe. I did a quick scan via the Web, and came up with the following figures, for 1994:

Ireland: 8.41 suicides per 100,000
Hungary: 35.38 suicides per 100,000
Estonia: 40.95 suicides per 100,000

Really? I was given wrong info then I heard that from "off-the-boat" Irish folks in Boston. They had a great theatre group up there. One of the actors had known no less than three friends who had killed themselves; some of them went to pretty great lengths too He was from Donegal; supposedly the suicide rate is especially high up there...

[Dottie]

I've always been told sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. While I have no idea if this claim is true or not figures i found at the Karolinska Institute said the suicide rate here dropped by 30% between 1980 and 1996 and was at 1999 47/100,000 a year.

hrmm... must be thoses damn socialist tendencies of us.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Dottie
hrmm... must be thoses damn socialist tendencies of us.

The Scandinavian countries have a high rate, as has Japan....the Swedish rate soared to world-leading heights during the late 80's and the 90's due the wonderful so called "Psychiatric reform" when a lot of psychiatric inpatients were suddenly supposed to move out to flats and live their own life. That's also when the rate of homeless people increased here, before the "reform" there was virtually no homeless at all in Stockholm And horror or all horrors, the reform was part of the privatisation of health care

[fable]

I realize we're getting far a field, here, but I think the Hungarian suicide rate is partially the result of being hemmed in on all sides by peoples of other ethnic and religious persuasions; and of having repeatedly sought to preserve their independence over the last thousand years, only to be brutally defeated on the battlefield. Fortunately, things are looking up now for Hungarians: NATO membership, EU membership coming up, Romania finally recognizing the rights of indigenous Hungarians living on their soil (roughly a quarter of Hungary was simply given to Romania by the big Allied powers), etc. Still, it's going to take a lot of time for Hungarians to get rid of the black depressive streak that runs through the society.

Oh, and yes--there *is* at least one Wiccan circle in Hungary, in the northern mountainous region. I know nothing other than that about what branch of Wicca it espouses. In the US, at least, Wiccan groups tend to be as heterogenous as the population, or more so. I know of major Wiccan umbrella groups that follow Celtic forms, while other prefer Scandi-German. The group I was initiated into originally used Santaria elements. And I'd be very interested in finding an active Russian group, since I'm drawn to the mythos.

[fable]

Originally posted by Der-draigen
[/color]There are PLENTY of passages in both Old and New Testaments that proclaim there is only one God. For example: Deuteronomy 4:35; 1 Kings 8:60; Isaiah 44:8, 45:5, and 46:9; Joel 2:27; Mark 12:32 . After all, the great statement of Jewish monotheism is this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is Lord alone" (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; also sometimes translated as "the Lord your God is one God". The meaning is the same though: "the one and only".). This is repeated in the Gospel passage cited above. As for the rest of the NT, St. Paul does talk about sacrificing to idols, etc.; but they are most assuredly not portrayed as gods, they are portrayed as spirits; and deceitful ones at that. By the time Christianity came around, the Jewish docrtine of only one God had long been firmly established. [/b]

Nice post. This is precisely where the line divides between polytheistic (or pantheistic, a much disputed word) and monotheistic religions. The former admit many gods, whether individually or as the images of one. The latter support only one god. No others need apply, and those that do are either demons, or seriously deluded people in grave danger of damnation.

Historically, it's interesting to recall that at one point Christianity was a more heterodox religion. Back before the 4th century AC, there were many Christian groups who followed a variety of theological and doctrinal formulae. Some believed that Jesus was a higher type of human, rather than god (Arians--Mormons belive this, as well); others believed Jesus was only god, and never truly became human (Nestorians). At least one group completely disavowed the old testament, and went with part of what is now considered the new. One of the major Christian sects was Gnostic Christianity, which admitted a whole range of Eastern ideas that the Greco-Hebrew Orthodox Christians hated. One ancient curmudgeon (now a RCC saint) wrote a book in which he detailed more than seventy "heretical so-called Christian sects."

When the Byzantine emperors sided with the Orthodox, the game was up for everyone else. The Orthodox suddenly had license to pillage and loot the temples of other Christians, rather than simply the temples of pagans. They drove out their enemies or drove them underground. Orthodox Christianity reigned supreme, and there were to be no disputes permitted concerning the appropriate books for worship, the right theology, or even the choice of a single word in describing God. Everything was fixed in place.

I don't mean to deride Christianity; this is part of the religion's history. I admit to finding it a sad part, since I think the ability to change at least in some sense of the word is a vital part of living. And religions, like the people that make them, live and die, too. Orthodox Christianity, which eventually split into several divisions (the main ones being the RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy), has always held that it alone has access to the complete truth.

Paganism, by contrast, generally has more modest goals. I know there may be smaller groups with broad aspirations, but by and large we worship as we do without trying to fully define the object of our worship. I think many of us know that if we're getting in touch with something greater than ourselves, it's going to be beyond our own understanding.

[Der-draigen]

Originally posted by fable
This is precisely where the line divides between polytheistic (or pantheistic, a much disputed word) and monotheistic religions. The former admit many gods, whether individually or as the images of one. The latter support only one god. No others need apply, and those that do are either demons, or seriously deluded people in grave danger of damnation.

What's wrong with saying there's only one God and no others need apply? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying there's only one God. Why is that such a gross error?...

At least one group completely disavowed the old testament, and went with part of what is now considered the new.

Marcionites.

One ancient curmudgeon (now a RCC saint) wrote a book in which he detailed more than seventy "heretical so-called Christian sects."

Had to be Irenaeus; but I always thought Jerome was way more curmudgeonly

I think the ability to change at least in some sense of the word is a vital part of living. And religions, like the people that make them, live and die, too. Orthodox Christianity, which eventually split into several divisions (the main ones being the RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy), has always held that it alone has access to the complete truth.

What's wrong with believing that one's own religion is the truest one -- without killing those who disagree, of course If I didn't think my own religion was the truest and the best, I'd believe something else or I'd believe nothing at all. The same goes for anyone who chooses one particular mode of belief and worship. So if you can say that the truth is that many gods exist, why can't I say that only one God exists? And hold to that truth without mixing in all kinds of other things in order to "change"?

IMO there is nothing at all wrong with standing up and saying that one's own beliefs are true. The problem comes in when, as you pointed out, blood is actually shed over it. I don't mind Muslims saying/believing that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet; but when they turn into radical terrorists over it...Know what I mean?...

I know there may be smaller groups with broad aspirations, but by and large we worship as we do without trying to fully define the object of our worship. I think many of us know that if we're getting in touch with something greater than ourselves, it's going to be beyond our own understanding.

But isn't that very thing a vital part of spiritual growth and practice? -- grasping for the divine, trying to arrive at whatever knowledge we can about Who we worship and why? I agree wholeheartedly that human beings are never going to be able to fully grasp the divine, because our finite minds are simply not capable of, as you say, "fully defining" the infinite. But the yearning, the longing, is there, planted in our souls by the Creator; and we can try. IMO that's one of the deepest beauties of the Holy Bible -- the human struggle to know who God is, the grappling with Him, the wrestling to find out the truth.