Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ

[Traveler]

The lesson for our priesthood next week will be based on the conference talk by Jeffery R. Holland titled “I Am He”.  This is a reference that, in essence, declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.  In his talk Brother Holland references 3 Nephi 11:10-11

Quote

10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

I intend to highlight the phrase, “I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning”.  I believe that when the Father asked, “Who will I send”, that from the beginning Jesus volunteered to be the Christ.  And that from the beginning Jesus “Suffered” to become the Christ.

My understanding come from the one great argument of atheists that G-d does not exist because He allows evil – especially evil that destroys innocence.  Why would a “good” G-d not just allow but create circumstance that the only result will bring such great suffering– not just because of evil but by the nature of the Universe itself.

The answer to this question is also the answer to the great debate over freewill or determination and it all goes back to the beginning – referenced above.  G-d is both merciful and just.  Because of Christ we are given agency – and it is this agency the initiated the War In Heaven.  That war is because of the injustice suffered from the bad exercises of agency of some upon others that did not exercise agency in the same manner.

Christ is the “Redeemer”.   Not only does he redeem our sins but also all sins of others that contributes to our suffering.  In the first place He is able to forgive sin because he is merciful.  Then, because He is the means of our agency and is the “creator” of the means by which we are subject to sin – He can justly suffer and redeem sin.  No other being is able to be both merciful and just to forgive and redeem sin.

Christ is the answer to why G-d can be merciful and just and yet allow the suffering of innocence.  Christ redeems the suffering of innocence and bring both justice and mercy for sin and the suffering caused by sin.

Brother Holland also references the 4th Article of Faith in his talk where we learn that paramount to the plan of G-d is “Faith in the L-rd Jesus Christ”.  First that we have faith that Christ redeems sin.   And yet the Book of Mormon tells us that without repentance it will be as though no redemption was made.  The reason is also explained in the Book of Mormon in that we are redeemed from sin not redeemed in sin.  That without repentance – we remain in sin.  If we do not repent before the final judgement we remain in sin and thought Christ suffered for sin, both out of mercy and justice – that if we do not repent the spirit that beguiled sin remains in us and abides with us.

So, Christ is also the answer to faith verses works.  It is through faith in Christ that we are able to repent.  Because of the atonement of Christ and faith in Christ that we repent and sin is overcome and no longer justly able to hold us and bring us suffering.   Not just because of our sins but also redeems us from the sins of others that causes us to suffer.  Note that repentance requires that we forgive the trespasses of others against us.

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

So do you believe that suffering the will of the Father always entails pain? Obviously the atonement produced more pain than we can comprehend. But there were many aspects of His ministry that I imagine were quite enjoyable. Was he not "suffering" the will of the Father at these times as well? 

[zil2]

Yes, suffer used to be used to mean "tolerate" or "allow (someone) to do something" - and this use is normal in scripture.  I've always read this phrase as meaning simply that Jesus willingly submitted to the will of the Father in all things.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

So do you believe that suffering the will of the Father always entails pain? Obviously the atonement produced more pain than we can comprehend. But there were many aspects of His ministry that I imagine were quite enjoyable. Was he not "suffering" the will of the Father at these times as well? 

Thank you for your response and question.  Though we use words to communicate, I realize that we do not all understand in the same manner.   I do not think I suffer pain as others do.  Physical pain is not a big deal to me.  Though I do experience pain it does not affect me as I observe its affect on others.  I have suffered some serious cycling accidents and though I experience pain I have never experienced debilitating pain.

I have always felt that emotional pain is self-inflected, so I refuse to allow such.  This does not mean that I am not ever disappointed or sorry – just that I do not let such define me – I see no logic or benefit in it.  I have great difficulty in understanding or helping someone that is depressed.  I do not believe that we can “see” light and truth and be depressed.  Therefore, I do now dwell on sorrow, pain or that which is depressing – rather, I look to the light.

I think @zil2 expresses some of what I think amounts to suffering.  I do not think we need pain in order to suffer.  I think of suffering as giving up something of perceived value for something else of greater value (hopefully for something or actual greater value).   I do not think that giving up something that is worthless or valueless for something of value or worth as an act of suffering. 

I do believe that from the very beginning – Christ suffered.  Not so much pain as things that he could have for himself that he gave up for a greater good.  We could say that he exercised faith in the Father in that he gave up a pursuit of his own will for the greater good of the will of the father. 

Some would argue that if the net result is positive or beneficial – that is not suffering but rather an enjoyment.  I would only respond by saying – and that is the logic in why we suffer for righteous sake.  I see no logic in suffering for darkness or the sake of evil.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

I think that John 5:19 gives insight to this line of thought

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Heavenly Father didn’t ask Jesus to suffer anything He wasn’t willing to do Himself.

Sometimes we are presented the opportunity to do great things.  They require dedication and sacrifice.

I find it comforting to know that Heavenly Father sent us here for a purpose.  That He has faith in us.  And that He will offer us opportunities to strengthen ourselves and others.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I think that John 5:19 gives insight to this line of thought

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Heavenly Father didn’t ask Jesus to suffer anything He wasn’t willing to do Himself.

Sometimes we are presented the opportunity to do great things.  They require dedication and sacrifice.

I find it comforting to know that Heavenly Father sent us here for a purpose.  That He has faith in us.  And that He will offer us opportunities to strengthen ourselves and others.

There is a point I think many miss – I will use the Eden epoch as an example.  The question concerns if G-d has any culpability in the fall of man (Adam and Eve).  There are a number of reasons for concern.

First. G-d knew exactly what would happen in Eden if Satan was allowed to beguile Eve.  Why did G-d knowingly allow Satan to beguile Eve?

Second. If G-d knew in advance what would happen but allows it anyway why does He not share any of the blame?

My point is – that G-d (Jehovah) does indeed have culpability and answered to the blame by becoming flesh and answering (paying for or redeeming) for all the sins of the fall and because of the fall.

I have argued this point in the theater of religion – including Christians (and LDS).  That Jesus Christ justly paid (redeemed) all of the sins connected to the fall of man.  And is the only possibility for a just redemption of sins.  I believe that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints allows this understanding.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

My point is – that G-d (Jehovah) does indeed have culpability

Can you elaborate?

[Traveler]

49 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Can you elaborate?

Using the Eden epoch and applying what we know to responsible parenting.   Let’s say that you have a friend with a garden on their property.  But in the garden is a poisonous viper.   Your friend knows well about the viper.  He know that the viper is extremely territorial and aggressive.  The viper will attack anything that moves in the garden.  So, your friend allows two of his very young and inexperienced children into the garden to play because it is something they have wanted so badly to play there – and yet the children were allowed to go play without even a single word of warning about the viper.

The children end up being bitten by the viper and die.  But your friend is not at all culpable because they desired and choose to play in the garden.  Would you drop off your kids at such a friend’s place while you went on a vacation with your wife for a couple of weeks?  Or would you think twice – thinking you would want your children with someone more responsible?

In case you are wondering – there is a lot more to the story.  But the part I have provided illustrates the point that there is culpability (or responsibility) when someone knows in advance with is going to happen, but they allow it to happen anyway.  Justice cannot allow one person to suffer for anyone else unless somehow there is some culpability.   We can say that taking on the consequences of other’s actions is kind and merciful, but it cannot be argued that it is just.  G-d by all we understand, is a just G-d.  Right?

I think from the very beginning - Christ took upon a lot of responsibility (culpability) for the sins connected to the fall of Adam and Eve.  Christ intended to redeem man from the beginning.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 6 by Traveler

[mikbone]

50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Christ took upon a lot of responsibility (culpability) for the sins connected to the fall of Adam and Eve.  Christ intended to redeem man from the beginning.

I agree with you in theory.  I just don’t like the word culpability.

Culpability - Blamable; censurable; involving the breach of a legal duty or the commission of a fault. The term is not necessarily equivalent to “criminal,” for, in present use, and notwithstanding its derivation, it implies that the act or conduct spoken of Is reprehensible or wrong but not that it Involves malice or a guilty purpose. “Culpable” in fact connotes fault rather than guilt. 

- Black’s Law Dictionary

I don’t like to use legal terms to discuss spiritual / biblical concepts.

Jesus Christ took stewardship for us and our sins / shortcomings.  And we were warned and given informed consent, both in the pre-mortal existence and in the Garden of Eden.  

I don’t think that Jehovah either committed a fault or breech of duty.

Edited January 6 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

When my kids were younger and getting into shenanigans, I'd think about the scripture "suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid them not to come unto me", and wonder vaguely if it was an invitation to send 'em home early.  

As far as emotional pain, I'm of the opinion that emotions spring from our deeply held core beliefs about ourselves.  And if we believe something that isn't true (anything from pride, to trusting in your arm of flesh, to failing to follow the commandment to love thyself), we end up having emotional pain when those beliefs translate into behavior and we crash into reality.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

Using the Eden epoch and applying what we know to responsible parenting.   Let’s say that you have a friend with a garden on their property.  But in the garden is a poisonous viper.   Your friend knows well about the viper.  He know that the viper is extremely territorial and aggressive.  The viper will attack anything that moves in the garden.  So, your friend allows two of his very young and inexperienced children into the garden to play because it is something they have wanted so badly to play there – and yet the children were allowed to go play without even a single word of warning about the viper.

The children end up being bitten by the viper and die.  But your friend is not at all culpable because they desired and choose to play in the garden.  Would you drop off your kids at such a friend’s place while you went on a vacation with your wife for a couple of weeks?  Or would you think twice – thinking you would want your children with someone more responsible?

In case you are wondering – there is a lot more to the story.  But the part I have provided illustrates the point that there is culpability (or responsibility) when someone knows in advance with is going to happen, but they allow it to happen anyway.  Justice cannot allow one person to suffer for anyone else unless somehow there is some culpability.   We can say that taking on the consequences of other’s actions is kind and merciful, but it cannot be argued that it is just.  G-d by all we understand, is a just G-d.  Right?

I think from the very beginning - Christ took upon a lot of responsibility (culpability) for the sins connected to the fall of Adam and Eve.  Christ intended to redeem man from the beginning.

 

The Traveler

By this reasoning, it would not be Jesus, but the Father who is “culpable” given His preeminent, active governing and commanding role in Eden in relation to Jesus, Adam and Eve.

But it is not possible for the Father to be culpable because He is perfectly just and merciful. It is just and merciful for Him to have done all the work to set things up for Adam and Eve to fall because they could not on their own have exercised agency, either perfectly or imperfectly, or either in the pre-existence, Eden, mortality or exaltation.

Likewise, it is just and merciful for Jesus to suffer grace for grace for Himself and in our behalf, because He could and chose to.

Had Jesus been in Adam’s “shoes”, He would have approached the dilemma in Eden differently, but would have still transgressed the laws of paradise to enter mortality and enter the path to the laws of exaltation, and would have done so in a just and merciful way, without “culpability”, as He already had the capacity to do so.

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

I agree with you in theory.  I just don’t like the word culpability.

Culpability - Blamable; censurable; involving the breach of a legal duty or the commission of a fault. The term is not necessarily equivalent to “criminal,” for, in present use, and notwithstanding its derivation, it implies that the act or conduct spoken of Is reprehensible or wrong but not that it Involves malice or a guilty purpose. “Culpable” in fact connotes fault rather than guilt. 

- Black’s Law Dictionary

I don’t like to use legal terms to discuss spiritual / biblical concepts.

Jesus Christ took stewardship for us and our sins / shortcomings.  And we were warned and given informed consent, both in the pre-mortal existence and in the Garden of Eden.  

I don’t think that Jehovah either committed a fault or breech of duty.

There may be and even ought to be better ways to convey how justice is fulfilled through the Atonement (Kippur) of Christ.  The primary reason I put this before the forum is to discuss how this can be properly understood.  There are no variables in that the end was known from the beginning. 

In my profession – testing was the most important element in achieving the intended result.  It was not a matter of acceptance or rejection as much as it was a determination of what was necessary to produce exactly the intended result.  The final testing, of necessity, required all elements in a real actual operation of all possibilities demonstrating preciously the capabilities of each isolatable piece as well as the entire system under all possible conditions.  In addition, there was a great deal of adnominally testing that would reveal what would happen to the system with component failure.

Overseeing all this testing was a hierarchical structure of cognitive engineers.  The lead engineer having cognitive responsibility of the entire project.

I would project that our mortal experience is the final testing – not just of the intended project but of the cognitive engineers.   Perhaps a better term is that Jesus is the lead cognitive G-d responsible for implementing the Great Plan of Salvation.

That Jesus is responsible for each individual.  There seems to be an entanglement similar to quantum entanglement that binds us each to Christ.  The binding entanglement would be the love of Christ.  It is by and through Christ that we are given the power of agency.

I agree that Jesus did not commit a fault or breech of duty but as the proctor of our agency – like a parent he has responsibility for us.  But there are two sides to this coin – He is also the proctor of our exaltation and shares in our successes.  In deed we are entangled and are one.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

When my kids were younger and getting into shenanigans, I'd think about the scripture "suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid them not to come unto me", and wonder vaguely if it was an invitation to send 'em home early.  

As far as emotional pain, I'm of the opinion that emotions spring from our deeply held core beliefs about ourselves.  And if we believe something that isn't true (anything from pride, to trusting in your arm of flesh, to failing to follow the commandment to love thyself), we end up having emotional pain when those beliefs translate into behavior and we crash into reality.

Thanks for your input.  Just a question – do you not have emotions involved in your children?

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

21 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have always felt that emotional pain is self-inflected, so I refuse to allow such.  This does not mean that I am not ever disappointed or sorry – just that I do not let such define me – I see no logic or benefit in it.

Are you sure?

Quote

Moses 7:28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

...

37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

etc.

Quote

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

Quote

Luke 19:41 ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,

Quote

D&C 42:45 Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection.

Quote

D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

Quote

Mosiah 18:9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, ...

...are you still sure?

[Traveler]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By this reasoning, it would not be Jesus, but the Father who is “culpable” given His preeminent, active governing and commanding role in Eden in relation to Jesus, Adam and Eve.

But it is not possible for the Father to be culpable because He is perfectly just and merciful. It is just and merciful for Him to have done all the work to set things up for Adam and Eve to fall because they could not on their own have exercised agency, either perfectly or imperfectly, or either in the pre-existence, Eden, mortality or exaltation.

Likewise, it is just and merciful for Jesus to suffer grace for grace for Himself and in our behalf, because He could and chose to.

Had Jesus been in Adam’s “shoes”, He would have approached the dilemma in Eden differently, but would have still transgressed the laws of paradise to enter mortality and enter the path to the laws of exaltation, and would have done so in a just and merciful way, without “culpability”, as He already had the capacity to do so.

Your post is something I really want to pursue because I do not understand what you are saying:

Quote

Likewise, it is just and merciful for Jesus to suffer grace for grace for Himself and in our behalf, because He could and chose to.

I seem to have a very different concept of Justice than what you seem to be implying.  My understanding of justice correlates with our second Article of Faith.  That everyone is punished for their own sins and not for anyone else’s transgressions.   I can understand mercy to forgive someone of something that they owe but the demands of justice are such that justice can only be fulfilled by someone entangled in the responsibility.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would project that our mortal experience is the final testing

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

 

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

As far as emotional pain, I'm of the opinion that emotions spring from our deeply held core beliefs about ourselves.  And if we believe something that isn't true (anything from pride, to trusting in your arm of flesh, to failing to follow the commandment to love thyself), we end up having emotional pain when those beliefs translate into behavior and we crash into reality.

Just a question – do you not have emotions involved in your children?

I have emotions about everything.  17 years into an intentional journey to grow my emotional resiliency, I only rarely have emotional pain about things.   I wouldn't consider sadness, concern, fear, worry, or any other such emotion to be "emotional pain".  The time my barefoot daughter screamed in pain and fell to the floor clutching her foot, and that's how I learned what happened to that tack I had lost - that gave me some emotional pain. 

Edited January 6 by NeuroTypical

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Your post is something I really want to pursue because I do not understand what you are saying:

I seem to have a very different concept of Justice than what you seem to be implying.  My understanding of justice correlates with our second Article of Faith.  That everyone is punished for their own sins and not for anyone else’s transgressions.   I can understand mercy to forgive someone of something that they owe but the demands of justice are such that justice can only be fulfilled by someone entangled in the responsibility.

 

The Traveler

Since the Father is just, He cannot be culpable. Because He is merciful, He provides the Savior for those who are. Because He is perfect, He cannot become "entangled (either finding it difficult to escape or impossible to disconnect) in the responsibility." The Savior aligns His will to the Father. Adam and Eve and the rest of us who are unjust, unmerciful and entangled need the Savior to condescend into our world (actually and metaphorically) and raise us up.

[Traveler]

On 1/6/2025 at 10:11 AM, CV75 said:

By this reasoning, it would not be Jesus, but the Father who is “culpable” given His preeminent, active governing and commanding role in Eden in relation to Jesus, Adam and Eve.

But it is not possible for the Father to be culpable because He is perfectly just and merciful. It is just and merciful for Him to have done all the work to set things up for Adam and Eve to fall because they could not on their own have exercised agency, either perfectly or imperfectly, or either in the pre-existence, Eden, mortality or exaltation.

Likewise, it is just and merciful for Jesus to suffer grace for grace for Himself and in our behalf, because He could and chose to.

Had Jesus been in Adam’s “shoes”, He would have approached the dilemma in Eden differently, but would have still transgressed the laws of paradise to enter mortality and enter the path to the laws of exaltation, and would have done so in a just and merciful way, without “culpability”, as He already had the capacity to do so.

I apologize for not responding sooner.  It is obvious to me that in this mortal life we have only enough information to shape general ideas.  You are correct.  On the surface it does appear that the ultimate responsibility for all things – good and bad – can only occur under the intelligence and direction of our Father in Heaven.  It also seem obvious to me that in our little corner of this vast universe – we live under very intricately stacked circumstances.  Perhaps even more so for the spiritual things over which we have no empirical means to scrutinize.

I will propose that our Father in Heaven is unable to redeem the sins from the fall of his covenant children.  In essence there are some things impossible for G-d because in his presents that is no allowance for sin.  But I assume our Father in Heaven is intelligent enough to devise a way and means that a Plan of Salvation could occur.   This is what I have been able to surmise so far.

First: The fall and execution of man’s mortal experience to come to an understanding of good and evil is required to take place beyond the presents of our Father in Heaven in order that the elements of evil can be learned by experience.

Second: A real experience of evil – of necessity must include the experience of Death.  Both physical death and spiritual death.  But this experience of death must be out of agency and choice of the individual – G-d will not force such on anyone.  To do so would be an act of evil.  This singular point answers for me why Lucifer’s exception turned him from a being of light to a slave of darkness.

Third: The only method to make a mortal experience real and work properly two things are a must:  The first thing is that an iron clad escape plan has to be in place to mitigate for all the sins.  The second thing is that an element of ignorance must be so that there is an element of innocence in all such sins.  In other words, as Jesus once said – those involved really do not know what they are doing.

The iron clad escape plan required a Messiah (Christ) that would oversee and be in charge (responsible) for the implementation of the entire plan.  They would grant agency in order to put the plan into effect, provide an environment for all to experience the plan of salvation and then fulfill every tiny bit of justice (suffering and death) to redeem all the sins of the somewhat ignorant living by faith (not pure knowledge).

This is – as near as I have been able to project – the only way and means by witch I believe the covenant children of G-d our Father would be able to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and then partake of the tree of eternal life and be exalted through the atonement (Kippur) of Christ and their repentance – all of which comes to a competition or finality when each individual comes before G-d the Father to make an accounting to insure all things were completed according to each’s agency.

I welcome questions and any input by all that wish to explore why Christ and only Christ is able to redeem us and fulfill ever whit of justice.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On 1/6/2025 at 11:12 AM, mikbone said:

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.

 

Could you explain?  I define our mortal experience as finished when we are raised to immorality and death (both physical and spiritual) is no longer in effect.  In essence the term mortal implies all that takes place to prepare and complete (resolve) a physical experience.  Alma tells us the even after death there must be a time of preparation for resurrection.  Resurrection that I believe completes or end the mortal experience.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On 1/6/2025 at 11:08 AM, zil2 said:

Are you sure?

...are you still sure?

When I was very young, I was capable of crying (weeping, mourning and other emotions) for many things that I experienced.  At this point of my life, I only experience such things, not as emotions inside of me but rather when I am having a spiritual experience beyond my personal abilities.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

On 1/6/2025 at 11:35 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I have emotions about everything.  17 years into an intentional journey to grow my emotional resiliency, I only rarely have emotional pain about things.   I wouldn't consider sadness, concern, fear, worry, or any other such emotion to be "emotional pain".  The time my barefoot daughter screamed in pain and fell to the floor clutching her foot, and that's how I learned what happened to that tack I had lost - that gave me some emotional pain. 

Thank you for your input.  I consider sadness, concern, fear, worry or other such emotions as temporary and not real or realistic.  Mostly, such things - after enough time - I find somewhat humorous.  I find little or no logic in being controlled by things that are temporary and fleeting.  It is not that I have never experienced emotions, just at this point of my life I see no logic in allowing such things to control me.  Not my thoughts nor actions.  Whenever I have done so – it has always brought me embarrassment.   Why continue to toucher myself with such things?  I see no benefit in it.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

When I was very young, I was capable of crying (weeping, mourning and other emotions) for many things that I experienced.  At this point of my life, I only experience such things, not as emotions inside of me but rather when I am having a spiritual experience beyond my personal abilities.

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for your input.  I consider sadness, concern, fear, worry or other such emotions as temporary and not real or realistic.  Mostly, such things - after enough time - I find somewhat humorous.  I find little or no logic in being controlled by things that are temporary and fleeting.  It is not that I have never experienced emotions, just at this point of my life I see no logic in allowing such things to control me.  Not my thoughts nor actions.  Whenever I have done so – it has always brought me embarrassment.   Why continue to toucher myself with such things?  I see no benefit in it.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether what you are doing is consistent with scripture or whether it is simply to save your pride (lest you be embarrassed and tortured), and whether your approach does or does not allow you to empathize with others (that is, mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort).

In the meantime, the Vulcans would like to have a word with you.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, zil2 said:

In the meantime, the Vulcans would like to have a word with you.

Yeah. Revenge is a dish best served cold, buddy.

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yeah. Revenge is a dish best served cold, buddy.

It does not matter how it is served.  Revenge is a dish full of poison that kills everyone willing to serve or partake of it.

 

The Traveler