This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Spirituality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of religion Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Theology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Theology / Latter Day Saints Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Mid-importance).

'Divinity always carries connotations of goodness, beauty, beneficence, justice, and other positive, pro-social attributes.'

I've removed the reference to 'monotheism' in this particular sentence, as it makes more sense this way and moves on to an explination as to it's relevence within monotheistic and polytheistic religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really agree. I've split off the Divinity (confectionery) part, but the other uses are strongly related to each other, and it makes more sense to keep them in the same article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after moving the confectionery part to a new page the other meanings are very related, so there is no need to split it in more parts. However, maybe the article should be focused in the main usage, making brief mentions to the others in the introduction to redirect the reader to other articles if interested. What do you think? But, may I ask why do you have removed the references about mythology? Thanks --surueña 15:53:31, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Which did you see as the main usage and which the subsidiary ones?

A "See also" section should include links to things not linked to in the text; the ones that I removed were, I thought, all referred to and appropriately linked in the text. Did I miss something? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the main usage of "Divinity" is about the property, "the nature of a deity". But I'm not an expert, it's simply because I see the other usage as a synonym for "god" (that has its own article), but I discovered that there are some differences reading your text. I'm agree with removing the split tag.

There is a version of the article that talked about Norse mythology. --surueña 21:07:15, 2005-07-31 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not at all sure about what it said, which is why I cut it. I'm still working at the article (mostly off-line at the moment), so I might come back to that, thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not explaining the changes, but I felt that the page needed some tidying up. I have created a separate page Divinity (academic discipline) for the academic discipline and created a new Divinity (disambiguation) page with all the relevant uses of Divinity listed there. If you are not happy then recommend those two pages for Rapid Deletion. Elsewise I think the rv on my edit should be undone and the article restored to my last edit. Davidkinnen 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that, while Divinity (academic discipline) looks fine, it doesn't really stand as a separate article, and would be better merged with this article (which is also rather short). That view is strengthened by the fact that "divinity" in this sense is largely synonymous with "theology". Do other editors have strong feelings either way? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some major revisions (my apologies if I disrupted the structure that was there - I tried not to), and I have again removed the section on divinity as an academic discipline. I inserted a forwarding link instead. it seems to me that the tenor of this article has to do with the use of the word 'divinity' and 'divine' to talk about higher realms, not to talk about the study of higher realms. to include the section on the academic discipline strikes me (to use a really, really, 'really' bad analogy) like opening a Playboy to find nothing but articles on cosmetics, airbrushing, and photographic techniques.

Sorry...  ;-)

I do feel that this article should be merged with the article on "Divine". I may do that next weekend, if it seems un-dysfunctional.

here is the section I removed:

In schools and universities, "divinity" is another name for theology and/or religious studies, and in some countries, especially in North America, for studies relating to religious ministry.

In general, in the United States a degree in Divinity is taken to mean a degree preparatory to, or in advancement of, practical ministry -- for instance, the Master of Divinity (M.Div., which may be pursued after the B.A., not necessarily the B.D.) is the standard degree before ordination or licensing in the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. The doctorate in this field is usually the Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.).

The academic degree in Theology, on the other hand, is usually the Ph.D. or Th.D. or S.T.D., taken preparatory to teaching in a university or divinity school.

The Doctor of Divinity degree in the United States is only awarded as an honorary distinction.

See Bachelor of Divinity, Master of Divinity, and Doctor of Divinity.

as always, feel free to dispute. Ted 09:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would be appropriate to merge this with divinity, and redirect Divine to Divine (Glen Milstead). Gilliamjf 02:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following passage and citation:

• Even certain sects of Buddhism, a faith noted for its skeptical attitude towards deities, invoke beings who have some supernatural status and religious significance.⁽²⁾
• <cite id="fn_2">2: Image of a Buddhist divinity from the British Library

the link goes to an image at the British museum to what the museum calls 'a Buddhist divinity'. there's no indication that buddhists would hold this to be an image of a divinity, or that the image was ever intended for that purpose by buddhists.

This is specifically not polytheistic, the usage is singular, and thus an upper case "G" is appropriate here. Sam Spade 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

silliness—please read the article. I'm not going to correct it, because it's really trivial, but you are POV pushing here, and I am losing a little bit of respect for you because of it. I know that you're a Child of God, and I respect that, but there's no need for you to use Wikipedia for proselytic or evangelical purposes. Ted 17:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the article, and Avoid personal remarks. Sam Spade 21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sam, this has little to do with the article. you claim that this usage is specifically not polytheistic, but please check the edit history: I wrote that particular line, and I'm telling you that I did not not intend it to be a monotheistic statement. nor would that perspective fit comfortably with the rest of the article, which specifically notes that capitalized uses are reserved for monotheisms, but more general/historical uses of the term are lower-cased.

I'm really not that concerned about capitalization here, but man, you keep filtering everything through your own religious filter. if you can not adopt a more open, balanced perspective then you should not be working on these articles. I don't know how to put it more clearly than that. Ted 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my last statement. Sam Spade 08:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am entitled to inform you when you are violating NPOV policy. whether or not you like hearing it is irrelevant. if you wish to take it personally, I can't help that, but it's not going to stop me from saying it. you are (of course) welcome to discuss the matter if you think my statements are in error, or you can present it for appropriate mediation or arbitration. Ted 14:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to LDS is gratuitous

The topic of "Divinity" has been exploited in order to espouse beliefs of the Mormons which go beyond the topic of the article. The section on the LDS should be shortened in the spirit of brevity and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearDivinity (talk • contribs)

This is not a discussion that I wish to become involved in, but I would like to note that the specific section on one religion is at best religiously biased with the assumption that all readers are Christian and would need an explanation of one particular religion's deviations from the explanation.

However, I would like to caution you on your edits, which seem to be to a degree centred around disputing the validity of the differing perspective. As well, if you are interested in shortening the section, why have you made it significantly longer? In my opinion, one paragraph of perhaps 5 sentences is sufficient to explaining that a difference exists, with a link to another article which has more in-depth dealing with the matter.

Finally, just a friendly reminder to remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking the signature button on the toolbar. This fills in your username and the date, making discussion easier. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section has recently been fixed. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The weblink referenced in footnote 5 is a dead one, as the page has been removed from the website (www.allspirit.co.uk/awakeningsigns.html). I suggest replacement by the following link:

http://www.crimsoncircle.com/AboutUs/AboutTobias/AwakeningSigns/tabid/89/Default.aspx

as that one links to the original source of the article quoted, "Twelve Signs of Your Awakening Divinity".

I don’t know how to do it myself (only created an account today, am still a newby) so I hope someone else here will pick up on my suggestion.

MasterIAM (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came back to check to find that the old link is still there. Tried to edit the link, but when I want to edit the page the actual links don't show up in my preview pane!! So I'm still unable to edit the link. What am I missing?

MasterIAM (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just replace the old link with the new one like I did right now.--Jorfer (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph ends with, "These include (by no means an exhaustive list):"

A list needs to follow.65.35.202.182 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean? divinity "the state of things"... is that to say reality is divine?50.249.93.181 (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Rolande Shillingford[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Divinity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Divinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202223313/http://www.crimsoncircle.com/AboutUs/AboutTobias/TheAwakeningSigns.aspx to http://www.crimsoncircle.com/AboutUs/AboutTobias/TheAwakeningSigns.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the WikiProjects listed, would this not be of interest to Wikipedia: WikiProject Religion?Vorbee (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]