What makes something divine?

[Resha Caner]

This is largely a question for non-Christians. What makes something divine?

I ask to help me understand the perspective of non-Christians who post here. Many non-Christians often say, "I'm not the believer. That's for you to define." But then, as the conversation proceeds, it becomes painfully obvious non-Christians actually have many expectations of what the word means that don't fit my definition, and all that baggage gets in the way.

I have no intention of debating or trying to correct the answers of others (at least not in this thread). I just want to know what you think.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I have no idea.

This is akin to the question of the supernatural. If we could detect the effects of the supernatural, wouldn't be through our senses (or extensions thereof). If this is the case, wouldn't the supernatural be natural? (And, how does one distinguish between the undectable and the imaginary?)

In any case, no idea.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well, of course I do have plenty ideas about what we mean when we talk about a divine being. And I doubt many of them would come as a surprise to you. Immortal, all powerful, omnipresent, answering prayers, king of heaven and creator of hell...how am I doing?

 

[zippy2006]

In the colloquial tongue divinity would seem to be associated with exceptional power or knowledge.

 

[Silmarien]

I'll comment as a former pantheist, since it's a pretty serious third perspective:

I used to have the idea that either everything was divine, or that nothing was. I'm not really sure I even knew what I meant--in retrospect, there was a lot of bad Spinozism going on there, but I suppose I was tying the concept of divinity to a spiritual sense of awe and wonder in general. Theism as I understood it was both too small and too specific to fit my understanding of what divinity ought to entail.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll comment as a former pantheist, since it's a pretty serious third perspective:

I used to have the idea that either everything was divine, or that nothing was. I'm not really sure I even knew what I meant--in retrospect, there was a lot of bad Spinozism going on there, but I suppose I was tying the concept of divinity to a spiritual sense of awe and wonder in general. Theism as I understood it was both too small and too specific to fit my understanding of what divinity ought to entail.

When I read this OP I noticed that, in our modern context, the adjective "divine" is usually only applied to God or gods. For that reason IA's decision to give a definition of a divine being is understandable. Yet the equivocal uses of "divinity" are fairly interesting, and the question of the OP nicely brings out the contrast between God and other things considered to be divine, such as awe and wonder.

I can't help but connect the fact that we only apply divinity to God with the fact that theosis has gone by the wayside.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have no idea.

This is akin to the question of the supernatural. If we could detect the effects of the supernatural, wouldn't be through our senses (or extensions thereof). If this is the case, wouldn't the supernatural be natural? (And, how does one distinguish between the undectable and the imaginary?)

In any case, no idea.

Thanks. I avoid the term "supernatural" for many reasons, including those you listed.

 

[Resha Caner]

I used to have the idea that either everything was divine, or that nothing was.

Thanks. I like your awareness of yourself here. I've often wondered if the de facto usage by many has this result. When it does, I think the term becomes useless.

 

[Resha Caner]

When I read this OP I noticed that, in our modern context, the adjective "divine" is usually only applied to God or gods. For that reason IA's decision to give a definition of a divine being is understandable. Yet the equivocal uses of "divinity" are fairly interesting, and the question of the OP nicely brings out the contrast between God and other things considered to be divine, such as awe and wonder.

I can't help but connect the fact that we only apply divinity to God with the fact that theosis has gone by the wayside.

I think Christian theology is intentional (or at least should be) in applying "divine" only to God. Unless it's the colloquial use you mentioned, God would be the only origin of the divine.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, of course I do have plenty ideas about what we mean when we talk about a divine being. And I doubt many of them would come as a surprise to you. Immortal, all powerful, omnipresent, answering prayers, king of heaven and creator of hell...how am I doing?

No, none of those are a surprise, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of them, which is my point. Should you allow me to define the word, your job becomes discarding any baggage that I didn't specify - admittedly not always an easy task. While I'm admitting it can be hard for the non-Christian to do that, I sometimes feel as if the non-Christians I speak with feel no obligation to do anything of the sort. They expect I'm going to do all the heavy lifting and they can just poo-poo what they don't like.

I don't mean you, of course, since I don't recall that we've ever spoken before.

 

[zippy2006]

I think Christian theology is intentional (or at least should be) in applying "divine" only to God. Unless it's the colloquial use you mentioned, God would be the only origin of the divine.

I think monotheism would always say that God is the only origin of the divine, but there are different conceptions of God's relation to the world which result in different ways that divinity could be predicated of creatures.

But I am clear on your view of deification, and I admit that it's characteristically Protestant.

Would you say, then, that your OP is basically asking about God?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't mean you, of course, since I don't recall that we've ever spoken before.

Of course, I understand. Well, it's your God, and you're the one allowed to describe it. But from my point of view, my function is to point out discrepancies, logical flaws, internal consistencies - and I think it is reasonable to point out if a Christian's thoughts on God are at odd with other Christians, or the Bible, as they sometimes are.

 

[Silmarien]

When I read this OP I noticed that, in our modern context, the adjective "divine" is usually only applied to God or gods. For that reason IA's decision to give a definition of a divine being is understandable. Yet the equivocal uses of "divinity" are fairly interesting, and the question of the OP nicely brings out the contrast between God and other things considered to be divine, such as awe and wonder.

I can't help but connect the fact that we only apply divinity to God with the fact that theosis has gone by the wayside.

Well, I say awe and wonder because I never really sat down and put much thought into what I meant by "divinity" when I was a pantheist. I was flirting a little bit with the mystical traditions, so there were hints of nondualism there, but I didn't go deep enough into anything to have more than the vaguest idea of what I was talking about.

Even a bit of mysticism meant that I wouldn't have applied the word "divinity" to God at all. Actually, it took me a long time to even get used to the word "God," because I'd avoided it so completely. It just seemed so anthropomorphic.

I don't think this is at all uncommon with people who run away from Judeo-Christianity and start flirting with Eastern religions (including Sufi Islam). You get apophatic enough that you don't associate divinity with Western "God-talk" at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

Would you say, then, that your OP is basically asking about God?

I did my best to leave the OP open-ended. My experience is that in short order I am asked to give my definition/view. So my comments are about my view. I remain open to hearing about how other people use the term.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course, I understand. Well, it's your God, and you're the one allowed to describe it. But from my point of view, my function is to point out discrepancies, logical flaws, internal consistencies - and I think it is reasonable to point out if a Christian's thoughts on God are at odd with other Christians, or the Bible, as they sometimes are.

In this forum, yes that is fair game.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think on some level the difficulty has come from the fact that, in the history of Christianity there has been two competing notions of the divine. One based upon philosophy, and one based upon theology.

The philosophical view begins with a set of abstract ideas--God is omnipotent, God is X, God is Y. What we would describe as the "attributes of God".

But I think the appropriate position to take is the theological one, not the philosophical one. It's the position that Martin Luther takes in the Heidelberg Disputations about what it means to be a theologian of the cross. And that doesn't begin with abstract ideas, the attributes of God; rather it begins with the concrete, solid, person of Jesus who lived, suffered, died, and rose again.

Hence Luther writes,

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth." - Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

Thus we behold God not through the invisible and abstract notions of power, wisdom, glory, et al; but rather through the visible and tangible reality of the Crucified Jesus. And thus we behold God not in wisdom, but foolishness; not in power, but weakness; not in glory, but the cross.

And so the definition of "divine" is found not through abstract and invisible notions of attributes; but instead in God's acts, God's self-pouring-forth, God's self-giving, etc.

I've always loved the following quote from the Catholic theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe

"This is what John is talking about at the beginning of his Gospel when he calls Jesus the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history--and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human." - Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, p104

And of course it is only this Incarnational understanding of God that can make sense of the multifaceted dimensions of Christian theology; perhaps no more so noticeable than in the doctrine of Theosis. So when St. Athanasius declares, "He became man so that man might become god." this can only be understood through the Incarnation; for the great doctor does not mean we become "almighty" or "eternal" or any of these attributes; but rather speaks of our sharing in God through Jesus and the Spirit. We don't become "gods" by some form of apotheosis; but rather that ultimately and in the end God's grace utterly penetrates us through the transformative and transfigurating work of the Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ. This work which shall be made full and perfect in the resurrection.

God, and so divinity, cannot be comprehended in any other way, at least not honestly, except through Jesus who gives Himself freely in suffering, death, and life.

And so what is divine is That which we encounter in the weakness, humility, and grace of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

I think on some level the difficulty has come from the fact that, in the history of Christianity there has been two competing notions of the divine. One based upon philosophy, and one based upon theology.

The philosophical view begins with a set of abstract ideas--God is omnipotent, God is X, God is Y. What we would describe as the "attributes of God".

But I think the appropriate position to take is the theological one, not the philosophical one. It's the position that Martin Luther takes in the Heidelberg Disputations about what it means to be a theologian of the cross. And that doesn't begin with abstract ideas, the attributes of God; rather it begins with the concrete, solid, person of Jesus who lived, suffered, died, and rose again.

Hence Luther writes,

"19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the »invisible« things of God as though they were clearly »perceptible in those things which have actually happened« (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

This is apparent in the example of those who were »theologians« and still were called »fools« by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of God through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn »wisdom concerning invisible things« by means of »wisdom concerning visible things«, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, »For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.« Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, »Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.«

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: »Show us the Father.« Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, »Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father« (John 14:9). For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 (John 14:6) »No one comes to the Father, but by me.« »I am the door« (John 10:9), and so forth." - Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20

Thus we behold God not through the invisible and abstract notions of power, wisdom, glory, et al; but rather through the visible and tangible reality of the Crucified Jesus. And thus we behold God not in wisdom, but foolishness; not in power, but weakness; not in glory, but the cross.

And so the definition of "divine" is found not through abstract and invisible notions of attributes; but instead in God's acts, God's self-pouring-forth, God's self-giving, etc.

I've always loved the following quote from the Catholic theologian Fr. Herbert McCabe

"This is what John is talking about at the beginning of his Gospel when he calls Jesus the Word of God made flesh. Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history--and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human." - Herbert McCabe, God Still Matters, p104

And of course it is only this Incarnational understanding of God that can make sense of the multifaceted dimensions of Christian theology; perhaps no more so noticeable than in the doctrine of Theosis. So when St. Athanasius declares, "He became man so that man might become god." this can only be understood through the Incarnation; for the great doctor does not mean we become "almighty" or "eternal" or any of these attributes; but rather speaks of our sharing in God through Jesus and the Spirit. We don't become "gods" by some form of apotheosis; but rather that ultimately and in the end God's grace utterly penetrates us through the transformative and transfigurating work of the Spirit conforming us to the image of Christ. This work which shall be made full and perfect in the resurrection.

God, and so divinity, cannot be comprehended in any other way, at least not honestly, except through Jesus who gives Himself freely in suffering, death, and life.

And so what is divine is That which we encounter in the weakness, humility, and grace of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

You preempted me, but said it better than I would have, so thanks.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You preempted me,

Sorry, didn't mean to.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

Sorry, didn't mean to.

No, no. I'm glad you did.

 

[Silmarien]

I think on some level the difficulty has come from the fact that, in the history of Christianity there has been two competing notions of the divine. One based upon philosophy, and one based upon theology.

What do you see as the conflict between the two approaches?

It seems to me that the philosophical view identifies what God is, whereas the theological view focuses instead upon who he is. I don't see how they can do anything but complement each other, if approached correctly.