[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

To a Christian it comes back to our God. If you are referring to Thor as the Norse god of thunder, then you are referring to a poor substitute for the one true God. You are comparing a likeness to the only God that does actually exist.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the etymology of the word "god":

God can variously be defined as:

• the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
• the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
• the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

I'm using the second definition. No comparison is being drawn.

The word God does have actual meaning associated with it and there is only one that fulfills all of the criteria to be God.

I didn't use "God" I used "god." The former is being used as a proper name for our Lord. The latter is being used in a generic sense.

As a side note, have you actually used "fetishistic" when talking to someone?

Yes, but I'm careful about it because people tend to assume I'm referring to a sexual fetish. You don't want to conjure up an image of someone sucking on toes in the midst of a serious discussion. Bleh.

[tlj009]

Posted by Athanatos
If you took my name for your new word for excrement, it depends on what you mean by it. Are you trying to convey an insult to me? Then, yes, it is offensive. If people didn't know me, and you used the word as for excrement -- irrespective to who I am, because you're not talking about me -- and they asked you what you meant, "it's the hip new lingo for excrement", then is it an insult against me? Surely not. You are not talking crap about me, because neither you nor your audience is thinking of me, they're thinking of crap. Words are for communication. In this case, you're not communicating "this one guy with whom I was discussing philosophy". The fact that they have the same word ("athanatos") is coincedence, or happenstance, UNLESS YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY COMMUNICATING A MERGER OF MY IDENTITY WITH CRAP. In that case, I'ma punch you.*

*sorry for yelling and pseudo-ad-hominem

P.S.
for those who do not know, "athanatos" is a greek word meaning without death, not dying, immortal.

Posted by Slap J
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the etymology of the word "god":

God can variously be defined as:

* the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
* the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
* the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.



I'm using the second definition. No comparison is being drawn.

Both of your posts are based on reason. Athanatos justifies his position by reasoning that I wouldn't actually be insulting him. Slap J justifies his position by saying that he is using the second definition which has nothing to do with the first definition. I am saying that people are not that logical. Realistically, when a single word has two definitions, both are thought of. And realistically, about the 5th time that I use your name for a dung heap, you will get fed up with it.

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Both of your posts are based on reason.

That is bad how?

Athanatos justifies his position by reasoning that I wouldn't actually be insulting him.

Because you wouldn't.

Slap J justifies his position by saying that he is using the second definition which has nothing to do with the first definition.

No he is saying that there is more than one definition. And that there is no reason to believe that any definition must be arbitrarily chosen over the other. The only way to tell what a word or statement means is by how it is used and intended (as stated before).

I am saying that people are not that logical.

I really don't see how this is relevant. It doesn't really matter if they are logical or not. The truth remains the same.

Realistically, when a single word has two definitions, both are thought of.

Maybe. But yeah, let's say they do. So what? Their intent is the only thing that matters seeing that it is the only thing that determines the meaning of such words.

And realistically, about the 5th time that I use your name for a dung heap, you will get fed up with it.

Even if that was true, it is irrelevant in that you are not intentionally insulting him. If he gets fed up about it then it is his own fault not yours.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Slap J justifies his position by saying that he is using the second definition which has nothing to do with the first definition.

I wouldn't put it so strongly as to say I'm justifying anything. I'm just raising a question that I think is interesting. That is, what does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain vis-a-vis the so-called "religious profanities"? Does "oh my god" or "good lord" or "lordy mercy" qualify? Etc.

Either way, whether it's wise to utter such things is another matter. That expression (oh my god ) is not part of my natural vocabulary because I was taught that it was blasphemous. Though it's funny that more folksy variations were commonly used such as "oh lord" and "lordy" and such.

[tlj009]

I wouldn't put it so strongly as to say I'm justifying anything. I'm just raising a question that I think is interesting. That is, what does it mean to take the Lord's name in vain vis-a-vis the so-called "religious profanities"? Does "oh my god" or "good lord" or "lordy mercy" qualify? Etc.

Take "lordy mercy". I believe that is a shortened form of "Lord have mercy". As in Lord have mercy on me because I am going to kill him. You get mad and exclaim "Lord have mercy" because you know that you shouldn't lose your temper like that. But you don't expect an answer and are almost never seriously asking the Lord for help. At best you are asking amiss, and you are calling to the Lord in vain because you are not seriously seeking help.

Either way, whether it's wise to utter such things is another matter. That expression (oh my god ) is not part of my natural vocabulary because I was taught that it was blasphemous. Though it's funny that more folksy variations were commonly used such as "oh lord" and "lordy" and such.

I agree. People don't use good sense in regards to it.

[tlj009]

That is bad how?

???

Because you wouldn't.

k

No he is saying that there is more than one definition. And that there is no reason to believe that any definition must be arbitrarily chosen over the other. The only way to tell what a word or statement means is by how it is used and intended (as stated before).

Go back and reread.

I really don't see how this is relevant. It doesn't really matter if they are logical or not. The truth remains the same.

Yes, the truth does. ????

Maybe. But yeah, let's say they do. So what? Their intent is the only thing that matters seeing that it is the only thing that determines the meaning of such words.

I disagree.

Even if that was true, it is irrelevant in that you are not intentionally insulting him. If he gets fed up about it then it is his own fault not yours.

Hurting someone is never irrelevant.

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by tlj009

???

I'm wondering what your point was when you said that their posts were based on reason. Do you think that is a bad thing?

k

So you understand that if you are not intentionally insulting him then you have not sinned regardless of whether or not he takes offense?

Go back and reread.

What point do you want me to get? Elaborate, please. Don't just say "reread".

Yes, the truth does. ????

My point is that whether or not the person saying, "Oh my god" is logical or not doesn't affect the truth that EVERY word spoken takes on the meaning intended by the speaker. The sin isn't in the utterance, it is in the intent.

I disagree.

Ok? What is your argument against it?

Hurting someone is never irrelevant.

Exactly? Right, but you can't control what people are insulted by.

I might be insulted by people who wear red socks. That doesn't mean that everyone I see in Walmart that is wearing red socks is sinning. In other words, it's my fault for being offended for such things without mentioning it to anyone beforehand.

[tlj009]

I'm wondering what your point was when you said that their posts were based on reason. Do you think that is a bad thing?

Did I say that reason was a bad thing? What I did say or imply is that reason does not always reflect reality.

So you understand that if you are not intentionally insulting him then you have not sinned regardless of whether or not he takes offense?

I don't know why you are arguing whether or not unintentional insults are a sin. The argument is about words. Ignorance of injury may be forgivable, but I don't see how it makes the injury a good thing.

What point do you want me to get? Elaborate, please. Don't just say "reread".

Why not? I have addressed the dual definition argument several times. My argument is that the definitions aren't completely separate of each other and your argument is that they are .... depending on how you intend to use the word. Anyway, I saw a lot of attitude in you last post and I see a good bit in this post. So I don't think that I will repeat the argument to you. If you reread the last couple of pages, maybe you will see what the argument is and ask a better question or make a better statement.

My point is that whether or not the person saying, "Oh my god" is logical or not doesn't affect the truth that EVERY word spoken takes on the meaning intended by the speaker. The sin isn't in the utterance, it is in the intent.

Nice bold letters. Unintentional sin still has consequences. The consequence here would be the calling on God turns into a slang and loses the impact that it should have.

Ok? What is your argument against it?

My argument is posted on the last couple of pages.

Exactly? Right, but you can't control what people are insulted by.

I might be insulted by people who wear red socks. That doesn't mean that everyone I see in Walmart that is wearing red socks is sinning. In other words, it's my fault for being offended for such things without mentioning it to anyone beforehand.

You can underline as well as bold. That's great. Let's try another example. Coca Cola has a company. I am unaware of it. I start my own company called Coca Cola. Mine is the most foul drink that you have ever tasted. I lose my business after about a year but everyone somehow connects my drink to Coca Cola's so that they lose business. I injured another company unintentionally. Is that their own fault?

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't know why you are arguing whether or not unintentional insults are a sin.

Because you view the phrase "Oh my god" as an unintentional insult.(?)

The argument is about words. Ignorance of injury may be forgivable, but I don't see how it makes the injury a good thing.

It's not about ignorance of injury. It's about the ignorance of people who see it as something to be injured (or offended) by. The injury is self-inflicted as a result of their own ignorance.

Why not?

Because I didn't understand what you wanted me to reread(?)

I have addressed the dual definition argument several times. My argument is that the definitions aren't completely separate of each other and your argument is that they are ....

How are these definitions not separate?

* the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
* the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
* the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

depending on how you intend to use the word. Anyway, I saw a lot of attitude in you last post and I see a good bit in this post. So I don't think that I will repeat the argument to you. If you reread the last couple of pages, maybe you will see what the argument is and ask a better question or make a better statement.

These three definitions just cover the original inferences of the word and not the hundreds of different meanings it can take on within different contexts and based upon different usages and intentions. The phrase "Oh my god" has come to a point where any of the three original definitions of the word don't even come to mind when stating it (at least when stated as an element of shock or surprise). Why? Because they are not intending to address "God/god" at all (whether in an honoring or dishonoring manner). They are just conveying a feeling of surprise or shock.

Nice bold letters. Unintentional sin still has consequences. The consequence here would be the calling on God turns into a slang and loses the impact that it should have.

You have not established that saying "Oh my god" is sin at all, yet alone whether or not it is intentional or unintentional.

Whom does it lose impact to? Someone who is truly calling out to God isn't concerned whether the words he uses are common or rare. It is a heart issue.

You can underline as well as bold. That's great. Let's try another example. Coca Cola has a company. I am unaware of it. I start my own company called Coca Cola. Mine is the most foul drink that you have ever tasted. I lose my business after about a year but everyone somehow connects my drink to Coca Cola's so that they lose business. I injured another company unintentionally. Is that their own fault?

It is the ignorant people's fault. They were ignorant of the truth. ("My people perish for lack of knowledge.") Only the truth saves.

[tmlfan123]

Originally Posted by Adam K

Why? Based upon what?

It can be more than blasphemy, but I do believe taking the Lord's name must be an intentional action.

What you're saying is that as long as we take our God's name "meaninglessly", it's ok? We just have to make sure that we're not insulting God directly to His face? Just so I understand what you're saying.

[Adam K]

Originally Posted by tmlfan123

What you're saying is that as long as we take our God's name "meaninglessly", it's ok? We just have to make sure that we're not insulting God directly to His face? Just so I understand what you're saying.

No, I'm saying that the Old Testament commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain", was aimed at THE NAME of God (YHWH; Yahweh). In Exodus 3:15, God even said, "This is my Name forever," (YHWH) "and this is my memorial to all generations.” So phrases like, "Oh my god!" or "JC!" or "GD!" don't use "God's name" and they also don't necessarily address God (unless intended to by the speaker).

We've also been discussing the nature of words and about what determines their message and their meaning.

It seems that there is a heart to every law (the spirit of the law) especially in the Mosaic law. Jesus pointed out the spirit of the law behind the commandments, "Do not murder" (do not look with hate) and "Do not commit adultery" (do not look with lust). He also addressed other Old Testament concepts and challenged the practices of the Pharisees and seemed to put a stress on the spirit of the law. In fact Jesus summed up all the law within the two commandments "Love the LORD your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Now as "New Testament" believers, who are under a new covenant, we must look at the spirit of the law ("Love").

From our discussion on the nature of words a few of us hold that it is the intention of the words spoken, the use of the words spoken, and the context of the words spoken that determine their meaning. So our words must be in line with "Love the LORD your God", and since our words' meaning is determined by our intent, anything said with intent to disrespect or profane God is against the spirit of the law ("Love").

Now, as for taking the Lord's name in vain; I found this following paragraph that pretty much sums up what I believe about it.

To ‘misuse’ God’s name, or to take in vain (i.e. to ‘make it nothing’) is to attach it to something that to which it does not belong. It is claiming that God has blessed or cursed something, someone or some activity based on your own purposes. Or, as Andy Stanley notes, “the original intent of this command was to prevent people from attaching God’s name to purposes that are not His.”

To take God’s name in vain - to make it nothing - basically is man’s way of pitting God against Himself.

[tlj009]

Because you view the phrase "Oh my god" as an unintentional insult.(?)

I see it as belittling the name that you use for God. Intentional or not, the result appears to be the same.

It's not about ignorance of injury. It's about the ignorance of people who see it as something to be injured (or offended) by. The injury is self-inflicted as a result of their own ignorance.

Except that it isn't the person being injured that perceives the injury. God isn't injured. It is the people who have a lesser view because of the common use of God. It is psychological but it doesn't make it any less real.

How are these definitions not separate?

* the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
* the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
* the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

Well they aren't separate because all of the definitions are wrapped up in a single word. But even more the first is a proper name of the one Supreme Being. The second talks of generic name of a being with "Divine" attributes. Since in real life there is only one with divine attributes, the second definition is about fairy tales with qualities pulled from the one Supreme Being. The third speaks of idols, obviously a (false) replacement for the one supreme being. And again, if the definitions had absolutely nothing else to do with each other, they are still combined into a single word. So when that word is mentioned, all of the definitions are thought about and considered. Which lessens the impact of using the word.

These three definitions just cover the original inferences of the word and not the hundreds of different meanings it can take on within different contexts and based upon different usages and intentions. The phrase "Oh my god" has come to a point where any of the three original definitions of the word don't even come to mind when stating it (at least when stated as an element of shock or surprise). Why? Because they are not intending to address "God/god" at all (whether in an honoring or dishonoring manner). They are just conveying a feeling of surprise or shock.

Again, intentionally addressing God or not, it turns a name of God into a common slang or even worse something attached to a negative situation. It would be like breaking bread and drinking the cup every Sunday without taking communion and then once a month actually take communion. It would lessen the event because with or without the words and intent, you are going through the same motions. Logically, you could say that you weren't having communion and it doesn't make a difference but psychologically the actual communion would have a lesser impact on you.

You have not established that saying "Oh my god" is sin at all, yet alone whether or not it is intentional or unintentional.

No I haven't. And I didn't really intend to imply it there. I do believe that it profanes the name of God though. And like I said, ignorance if forgivable but it doesn't make the action right.

Whom does it lose impact to? Someone who is truly calling out to God isn't concerned whether the words he uses are common or rare. It is a heart issue.

It is a heart issue, sure. But I don't know what else to tell you. So I disagree with your assessment that it doesn't cause it to lose impact.

It is the ignorant people's fault. They were ignorant of the truth. ("My people perish for lack of knowledge.") Only the truth saves.

???? So in the example I gave, the ignorant people would be who? The people buying the coke? That is as it may be but the world if full of ignorant people. People are the way that they are. Same as gravity. You can deny that it should be that way but the consequence is going to remain the same.

[athanatos]

Slap J, this is in actuality a discussion on meaning, reference and signifying. Philosophy of language. I think it's worth discussing both in- and outside of this context.

Originally Posted by tlj009

Both of your posts are based on reason. Athanatos justifies his position by reasoning that I wouldn't actually be insulting him. Slap J justifies his position by saying that he is using the second definition which has nothing to do with the first definition. I am saying that people are not that logical. Realistically, when a single word has two definitions, both are thought of. And realistically, about the 5th time that I use your name for a dung heap, you will get fed up with it.

Let's run with your assertion. You are saying that when a word has two definitions, both are conjured up in the audience's mind. And from this, when a word is used with one definition, and not the other, it depreciates the meaning of the second. Supporting thought for this: a word, in general, has its connection to that which it refers simply on the basis of association. If you have one symbol signify two different things, there is a new ambiguity and it requires discrimination to determine which is being discussed, based on context and other cues.

Let me take a word having two meanings, rather distinct from each other, and wholly understood based on context: "Blue." So, when someone says they like the color blue, you're concluding that (either always or in general) I think will think of not only the color, but also of sadness and depression. Supporting thought for this: you have a strong association between those meanings (blue is paired with depression, or you hear "he's feeling blue" at least 1/4 of the time the word "blue" is used), thus it takes some doing not to have both thoughts come up.

My intuition is that this is taking it too far. First, there is the subjectivity of association. Not everyone has the same association with the word "blue"; some have the word associated with sadness a lot, but others have it only on a few occasions and don't think of the sadness. But there are others who, I would argue, have absolutely no exposure to that colloquialism. Therefore, there is no association, the word has not been given that definition to that person who receives the hearing of that word; that is, if someone were to say "blue", the hearer does not have the thought of sadness at all, but only of the color. Take, for instance, people who learn the word "blue" when English is not their native language.

Second, taking this back to "God", and especially to "gosh", there are people who do not have the association to referring to Yahweh. Others, they just don't talk about gods. (In some respect, this was Nietzsche's point that we've killed God -- we've put a lot of this talk of God, demons, and angels out of our "real" language, so that no one actually takes it as real or serious... suppose someone were to say that "I am pregnant from a god"). For example, when I say "gosh", I almost never think of God, or blasphemy of God, or anything regarding the sort. In fact, it is rather thoughtless- a knee jerk reaction to an event. Does "gosh," which is a degraded form of "God" (so as to not use the word that refers to God), refer to Yahweh, El-Shaddai? I would argue that for most people, it never refers to God.

Third, let me make this whole point even clearer. I love puns. When someone says one word that sounds like another or has a second definition, I often exploit it. For many people, it takes them a moment to catch what I meant. That is, for me, it is often the case that two ideas are conjured when a word is said; yet one tossed out because of context and trying to understand the thought that lines up with the speaker's intent. However, for others, it is often the case that people don't have two ideas conjured from that same word that was said, such that they didn't even need to toss it out to understand the speaker's thought. What I mean to say is this: words, even when they have too definitions in are language, don't necessarily refer two to different things.

[edit]

And realistically, about the 5th time that I use your name for a dung heap, you will get fed up with it.

But to take what I am saying even further, what about the 5000th time? Will I be fed up with it, or just think you aren't referring to me? Because I am sure given how long the phrase "oh my god" has been use in the way it is today, we are well past 50,000th, and our society just doesn't have only one, unchanging meaning for the phrase. We are well past it, and to say that we are not seems to me one of these two problems: either you're really living in the early 1900s, or you don't come into contact with non-Christians. Because clearly things have changed for the common man.

[tlj009]

Let's run with your assertion. You are saying that when a word has two definitions, both are conjured up in the audience's mind. And from this, when a word is used with one definition, and not the other, it depreciates the meaning of the second. Supporting thought for this: a word, in general, has its connection to that which it refers simply on the basis of association. If you have one symbol signify two different things, there is a new ambiguity and it requires discrimination to determine which is being discussed, based on context and other cues.

Let me take a word having two meanings, rather distinct from each other, and wholly understood based on context: "Blue." So, when someone says they like the color blue, you're concluding that (either always or in general) I think will think of not only the color, but also of sadness and depression. Supporting thought for this: you have a strong association between those meanings (blue is paired with depression, or you hear "he's feeling blue" at least 1/4 of the time the word "blue" is used), thus it takes some doing not to have both thoughts come up.

My intuition is that this is taking it too far. First, there is the subjectivity of association. Not everyone has the same association with the word "blue"; some have the word associated with sadness a lot, but others have it only on a few occasions and don't think of the sadness. But there are others who, I would argue, have absolutely no exposure to that colloquialism. Therefore, there is no association, the word has not been given that definition to that person who receives the hearing of that word; that is, if someone were to say "blue", the hearer does not have the thought of sadness at all, but only of the color. Take, for instance, people who learn the word "blue" when English is not their native language.

But consider this. The color is the primary definition. So when blue is said, the color is always thought of but some don't know about the depression definition. But when blue is used to mean depression, the color always comes to mind. That is why cartoons color characters blue to indicate that they are depressed. Especially in the older cartoons without dialogue.

Second, taking this back to "God", and especially to "gosh", there are people who do not have the association to referring to Yahweh. Others, they just don't talk about gods. (In some respect, this was Nietzsche's point that we've killed God -- we've put a lot of this talk of God, demons, and angels out of our "real" language, so that no one actually takes it as real or serious... suppose someone were to say that "I am pregnant from a god"). For example, when I say "gosh", I almost never think of God, or blasphemy of God, or anything regarding the sort. In fact, it is rather thoughtless- a knee jerk reaction to an event. Does "gosh," which is a degraded form of "God" (so as to not use the word that refers to God), refer to Yahweh, El-Shaddai? I would argue that for most people, it never refers to God.

"Gosh" may be a degraded form of God, but as you pointed out, most don't know the history of the word and it actually is meaningless. On the other hand, most people use God either speaking to or about God. So a definition is on hand. But then they use the same word as a meaningless expression. So it is not like there is ignorance about the meaning like it is for "gosh". Instead people simple choose to use the name of God as a meaningless expression. Now there are likely those that don't associate the word "god" in any way to our God, but I would say that those are few and far throughout most of the US. And my argument is even narrower in that I am saying that it is wrong for the same person who is calling on God to use his name in a rather meaningless way or in response to negative situations. That would limit it to actual Christians.

Third, let me make this whole point even clearer. I love puns. When someone says one word that sounds like another or has a second definition, I often exploit it. For many people, it takes them a moment to catch what I meant. That is, for me, it is often the case that two ideas are conjured when a word is said; yet one tossed out because of context and trying to understand the thought that lines up with the speaker's intent. However, for others, it is often the case that people don't have two ideas conjured from that same word that was said, such that they didn't even need to toss it out to understand the speaker's thought. What I mean to say is this: words, even when they have too definitions in are language, don't necessarily refer two to different things.

You are right if the speaker or listener don't know of the second definition or if it isn't commonly used. On the other hand if both definitions are commonly used, I would argue that both come to mind. And in the case of "God" both are commonly used.

But to take what I am saying even further, what about the 5000th time? Will I be fed up with it, or just think you aren't referring to me? Because I am sure given how long the phrase "oh my god" has been use in the way it is today, we are well past 50,000th, and our society just doesn't have only one, unchanging meaning for the phrase. We are well past it, and to say that we are not seems to me one of these two problems: either you're really living in the early 1900s, or you don't come into contact with non-Christians. Because clearly things have changed for the common man.

If I see sin, corruption, greed, etc. 50,000 times, I may begin to grow numb to it but it doesn't make it right. It may be that we are well past the time where God is a holy. Maybe if we continue to see him portrayed in movies, tv, etc. in a comedic, harsh, or non-existent manner, then we will grow numb to the fact that our one holy, all powerful God who is worthy of all praise and glory is being made fun of or portrayed as something less that what he is. But just because we grow numb doesn't make it right.

I live in the past in many ways but in this regard I am somewhat puzzled. I simply don't know how something can be the most important thing in your life and you not get mad when it is made to be less then it actually is. I don't expect much from non-Christians, but I do expect more out of Christians.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I live in the past in many ways but in this regard I am somewhat puzzled. I simply don't know how something can be the most important thing in your life and you not get mad when it is made to be less then it actually is. I don't expect much from non-Christians, but I do expect more out of Christians.

No one is saying that it's okay to denigrate the name of God. As I see it, the debate is about the significance of the symbols: g-o-d. Your argument rests on the supposition that most people (in a Judeo-Christian culture, anyway) take "god," devoid of any context, to be a referent to our Lord. That might be significant if we were talking about the wisdom of using certain language. And in that case I agree that many people do consider it blasphemous and it may be wise to avoid it. Back to the point, the only relevant facts, so far as I see it, is whether there is a consensus on the validity of alternate definitions. And indeed there is. When used as a name for our Lord there exists the capacity for vainness. Otherwise what is exceptional about that particular arrangement of those particular symbols?