Alamo-girl points out in her #163 that you said this. (She gives a link to it.)
What is your definition of "divine spark?" Without knowing that it's impossible to address your concerns about the term.
In the same post of mine you referred to, I think I gave a good acquittal of the term.
Maybe a metaphor would help.
CONSIDER THE BALLOON.
We buy a bag of balloons. They are limp and lifeless, grounded by gravity, inert. But they are still balloons.
We open the bag, remove one balloon and blow into it. Our breath fills the balloon and the balloon expands. Eventually, the balloon is inflated, buoyant, airborne; unlike the rest of the balloons still in the bag, earthbound.
The balloon itself has not changed; it is still a piece of non-porous latex. It's only the presence of the air inside the balloon that alters the balloon's make-up. But the air is not in any way part of the balloon materialistically.
And yet the air inside the balloon has given it qualities and abilities it did not and could not possess before the air entered the balloon.
IMO, the air in the balloon is like the Holy Spirit, its presence allowing us to cut our earthly chains and soar closer to the face of God. But never for one moment is the air actually part of the balloon.
The mistake, the curse of Eden, the blasphemy of the ages and human conceits, lies in the countless philosophies that insist a balloon can inflate itself.