>>21349645>the service is mutual, both leader and those lead give service unto eachother.Well put. I fully agree. However, like a husband and wife, they are not equals.
> Do you disagree with this? Depends on what you mean by sacrifice. If you mean suicidal sacrifice, then yes, I disagree. The leader should be one of the last to die, not one of the first for the unit to work best.
Do you have military or first responder experience or anything like it by any chance?
There is an archetype of leader that gives 110% to the team, and burns himself out, leaving the team leaderless after a brief period of high performance. This is considered a negative to be avoided in military circles.
>Sacrifice is rendered to Zeus or Jupiter but he does not offer sacrifice in return,He maintains the cosmic order.
My wife and children offer me obedience, and in return I maintain order and provide for them.
>After all, I think no just leader would ask of his men anything which he himself would not doExcept that the highest leader (Zeus/Jupiter/etc) cannot "do" obedience, since he is at the top. That's what you call "tyrannical", but it is simply the consequence of being nec plus ultra.
The trinitarian paradox is not a good answer to this issue btw, because it relies entirely on dogmatic obedience or pseudo-esoteric petersonesque rationales.
>fulfillmentThat's a better word, I agree. Regardless, it's a yom kippur ritual at the grandest scale possible. As a non-believer, this obviously suggests that the myth was written after 70CE.
>Christ is first and foremost opposed to the pharisees, Sure. But saul, the primary known author of the NT, is still a pharisaic jew, meaning that you - ironically - have to trust the word of the enemy of christ, regarding christ. But I've expanded on my beliefs on saul earlier in this thread, so I'll try to stick to the regal archetype topic.
