I am really grateful for these thoughts. The simpler the better probably : I have been floundering around in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and that’s where it gets sticky!
But, I am sure that last proposal, that divinity is **of **God, is like the example I gave earlier about the orange: this is a tautology in which we define something by itself. Divine = God = divine, and that’s that.
OK, let’s go on thinking, those few of us who are thinking about this most important word in our belief system. I find it confusing that 5 people have posted on this question of ‘divine’ - and did the same when I posted the same question about four years ago. At the same time, look at the sheer numbers of postings above and below the issue of ‘divine’, and the kind of questions that are being considered. Why does this happen? Why?
Is it because we take ‘divinity’ for granted? Is it because it is too hard to think about? Is it because the language of the church used to write about ‘divine’ is too often very difficult and may be open to a suggestion that there is a bit of sophistry here, a bit of playing with words, as Aquinas explains things
For me at this point in my spiritual journey, I have thought of ‘divine’ as ineffably perfect, beginningless and endless, unknown and unknowable, incomprehensible and outside the space and time models of we humans. And finally, that ‘divinity’ is love.
Who am I?
God Creator, Abba Father,
Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God and Man,
Emanuel, Redeemer, the Christ,
Holy Spirit Paraclete
The Trinity
First Cause, Unborn, Beginningless, Endless
I am the Unknowable.
I Am that I Am
Love
Blessings IHN