Anarchists know that they can destroy civilization and set the world on fire, and then create Order out of the chaos.
Just like God did.
Login to reply
Replies (130)
If a militia forms, it is to protect some piece of property, which is their territory. A multi-human entity holding a monopoly on violence over a defined territory is a government.
It does not have to be a government.
You want it to be.
I do not.
I do not agree with the premise that a temporary mutual aid agreement requires permanent authoritarian structures ruling over a particular place or group of people.
I didn't say passivity is necessarily a bad thing. I just don't think it's necessarily a good thing.
Since when am I fanatical? You disapprove of me because I am _not fanatical enough_, after all.
Humans are supposed to BUILD that utopia.
Here and now. Starting with the environs of Eden. Guess who screwed that up? Instead of blaming the past, we are called to build it in the here and now.
This is one thing that The Orthodox communions get 100% correct. Their concept of Theosis is more in line with what I read in the NT, and a fullfillment of the first commandments God gave to our progenitors.
A militia, with no predefined hierarchy, without regular and required training, that people join or ignore, depending on what they had for lunch, is just a messy mob.
he is the only authority. this is the message he tried to tell israel when they cried out for a king, before he finally gave into their demands. its the message Christ came to bring. we become like the king by following his example, and become the supreme authority in our own lives, answering only to god. this is the only future for man that makes any sense. we were born in our fathers image to grow into his footsteps. anarchy is christian.
No, we cannot build utopia. That is a divine right and we are mere pilgrims.
You seem to cling to the state too much. I dislike that in anyone. It frustrates me, a bit, because you are smart and I think you are generally a good and righteous person! I just find that the entirety of "the state" is incompatible with being a Christ follower. I can't see any other way to read the entirety of the Biblical story and come to another conclusion.
It isn't like I dislike you any less, and I am only this chatty on this topic with you because I have a huge respect for your intelligence. And, well, I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think I am on this topic.
no need to fight a thing that is dying. only to avoid the worst of its' depredations in a sanctuary.
our society is nevertheless free and just.
I don't have an antipathy to the _state_ — as a word or concept— so I can just call a state a state, without suffering cognitive dissonance and feeling the urge to rename it.
We can discuss whether larger or smaller states are better, but a state consisting of a cow village on a hill is still a state.
no, it's not. a local militia knows their own territory they must defend better than anyone, that's the whole point.
also, i don't believe it is possible that human power can endure. so their time is short.
I know groups that are not a messy mob and entirely voluntary . . . So . . . I respectfully submit that you are wrong.
Also, people in a militia can have a perfectly functioning hierarchy without there being any coercion. Again, I see it. And, in some ways, it is a growing thing.
Heck, that's how the early church was with the ecclesia. (Granted, there were leaders that were appointed through apostolic succession, but I am explicitly not conflating those with any human governance, as that is a separate thing. IMO.)
Yes.
We are supposed to be fruitful and subdue the earth.
When God created the world he called it GOOD. Not perfect. He then created us to be co-creators with Him. Creators of what?
Just a fun fact here: The word "utopia" means "nowhere". Thomas Moore chose the name deliberately.
My point is that humans don't NEED a state and the coercion that goes along with it, ESPECIALLY in the context of the fact that we have a model of how to do so in the history of The Church.
I am not OK with any coercion. That is not Christ-like.
Both Stella and I are aware of that, I am sure. 😁
Are you dying? It will be?
Do you think that only economic power moves state bandits?
Have you forgotten that they own your water, your electricity, your telephone and your internet?
Do you think your Bitcoins will be enough to end the state?
I'm sorry, but economic power is not the only power of the state.
I think defending freedom is continuous, until Christ returns. We cannot solve for that. It is part of Nature.
yes, indeed it is. but all property needs defenders or it decays. the plumbing won't maintain itself.
Then what was the point of Christ redeeming all of creation?
Christ already came. You are redeemed. You have t he mind of Christ. You have The Holy Spirit. You are a new creation. You have been born again/from above (take your pick of translation).
What are you if you are NOT supposed to be the representative of God's Will on earth by building Truth, Goodness, and Beauty into this world? (Which you DO!!!)
i think he came here to wipe our tears away and stop the criminals who cause the tears. i think it's pretty clear.
also, as a woman, you aren't qualified to comment on what hard, violent work is going to be needed to fend off the criminals. i personally would be more than happy to put bolts through the necks of trespassers and violators, like any red blooded man.
there is no earthly utopia because every 6000 years the galaxy and the sun make sure that only the fittest survive, and in that process, mutate, a lot, because of the radiation, from said galaxy and sun.
utopia actually must, and necessarily be, post-terrestrial
and the strong are definitely not women. they have too much to lose.
χάος
In what way? All human society is more or less corrupt and tyrannical, as we are prone to sin.
i see, and can you explain to me how that is happening when i am having a conversation with you, as a right-seeking person one to another?
That is where we are supposed to step in, as Christ Followers, to build a better world by being more Christ-like. That is the most revolutionary, destructive act to the evil in the world.
that's my opinion. if you aren't trying to outdo Jesus of Nazareth, are you even trying?
Yup. Pretty much it. Though, I don't think any of us CAN, we sure can become more like Him and thus, shift the world towards The True, The Good, and The Beautiful, like we were created to do as reflections of The Most High.
I have eternal life. That doesn't mean I cannot sin. It means I have access to additional Grace, through the sacraments, such as baptism.
Baptism gets rid of Original Sin. It doesn't make you permanently sinless.
i follow naturalpATH/nuturalLAW trumps all imho #loveIZlogical
GOoD/*****
yes, actually, it does. go read back.
^/ n0 ref. to 🟠ump*\*ya
And yet they wiped the floor with SEALs in Operation Red Wings. SEALs didn't even get a shot off.
You underestimate the capabilities of non-state militias, ma'am.
The trick is getting them to train often-enough and remain up to date in the absence of a clear and present danger. No, I don't have an easy solution.
this is a central doctrinal issue in christianity. in american christian (protestant) there is a debate between "once saved always saved" and what is perjoratively called "works doctrines" which say that you are still human.
well, i say that as a human, you can improve. we can always improve. i reject the idea that humans cannot shake off tyrants like we have on our backs now.
it's a matter of everyone taking up their own cross and doing the hard work. maybe dying.
i hate to say this but as a woman, you are supposed to be protected from that.
so you also should understand that it tends to be women who persuade young men to not be vigilant and rigteous.
i have met many many many men in my life who i considered to be righteous. the idea that you can't supersede that base state is toxic, and authoritarian.
no, who says you can't
and who gave them the authority to claim that?
i do my best. i'm not perfect. sue me. fuck you.
The Church Militant, I suppose, bringing the Gospel to the ends of the Earth and into our homes and communities, until He returns.
2nd try & last, M, how is your cat?
Right-seeking is not the same thing as being sinless.
So just because there is sin in the world you should accept tyranny.
Right.
That makes so much sense.
The right way is to TURN FROM SIN, of which tyranny is one, and make the world more perfect.
I have yet to see a practical demonstration of non-coercive governance unless we are talking about some kind of covenant-based community, which should be entirely possible to do and even likely if all the BTC maxis have their way.
nothing in this universe is without a lack of something. it actually is key to how the whole thing operates.
outside of human society, it is war. outright war. life and death.
the whole point of this "creating man" thing was to enable life that does not exist as a zero sum.
Duh.
But the orientation of or heart should be Towards Christ. Not Man.
No, the most revolutionary act would be trying to be more like Christ, even if you knew it would make the world worse.
I don't mean subdue other humans militantly. That is not what Jesus charged us to do. Go forth preaching the gospel and baptizing them is not the same as forcing people to convert by the sword.
I meant that each human is a son and daughter of The Most High, and we are to rule what we are given and make it beautiful and order it to produce more than is put in, as God does. We are the heirs to his kingdom, and as such, we may not rule over each other with violence and coercion, but with love.
how could that be Christ like if it makes things worse?
no, actually, the whole point, which many people deliberately ignore, is that it enables a righteous society when the society is capable of recognising mischief.
mischief is the crack that the bad guys stuff a wedge in to widen as much as they can.
Even excommunication and banishment are a form of coercion.
exactly. it's about respect. the problem we have as a society now is there isn't enough people saying "this is wrong"
that whole excommunication thing led to protestants.
Who decides what is right and what is wrong? Everyone has a different opinion.
Sure.
But that is exactly what Jesus did with the temple booting, people doing something at an inappropriate place.
And, for the record, I don't have all the solutions, but I know Who does. And thankfully, I don't need to solve all the world's problems. I just have to be where I am supposed to be, and I am.
yeah, that's the point. there is an objective level to this.
Protestants also do excommunication. That is why there are so many different ones.
You can even excommunication yourself.
Doesn't stop us from regularly being wrong.
what is the problem is all this wishy washy apologising for those psychos who disagree.
yeah, fuck you victim. no, i don't accept this behaviour, no matter how normal it is.
it's not normal. it's fucking abuse.
Well, if it is objective and clear, then we should write down and all agree to abide by it.
i'm not sure how much thought you have put into it but getting the right answer means having all the data.
we literally cannot have all the data. but we can use rules that don't oppress people also, reasonable rules. that's how equity jurisprudence arose. OUT OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY NO LESS.
seriously, having your heart in the right place is a real thing, you literally cannot have all the facts. the end.
i'm never going to apologize for being a limited, subjective individual.
never
ever
ever
and the reason why is that is the crack that psychopaths use to compromise your agency.
anyway, maybe you never got your agency stolen from you. good for you.
Well, that is only because we have not drawn so close to Him. He doesn't expect perfection. He just expects us to turn to Him in all things.
If we are to dedicate our entire being to be more Christlike, you cannot help but be less sinful, and thus more correct. We won't ever hit perfection until the everything is passed away and God makes everything anew, but . . .
That does no absolve us from doing what we are created to do. You do a lot of that already. I put forward that you do that IN SPITE of being hampered by the state and all its evils, and you have been blessed for doing so. (From what I know of you and your life.)
The thing is that everyone has a different role, so we can't all be the same, even if we are living for the same goals.
God didn't create us all to be samey-same. Thank God for that! LOL!
Protestants do so much protesting, most Protestants are not, IMO, actually Followers of Christ. But neither are most Catholics or even Orthobros.
It's a hard path because we have to continually die to ourselves. I kinda hate that, but there is no other way but to trust and obey, to quote a pithy hymn.
I guess you don't understand the terms
si vous plait M
i live in grace imho, Stella
tribal ya, but co;.;op also/rhythm><order from chaOS freq. 💞🎶
i never subjugatED mySELF on purpOsE but know my lack IN theE NOW/*****
If i remember correctly in some versions god was standing above a liquid abyss when created the world. Also if i remember well psalm 103 says something like that. But that comes from the oldermyth of Nammu.
Anyway..
anarchy, as defined by the spanish model, ain't no longer possible except within the confines of one's own bedroom. then again, nothing else works or would work in a megalopolis, let alone in a smart city. destruction now might be symbolic, of one's own ego, and reconstruction may take place far, far away from urban centers. fugere urbem.
what a ridiculously naive belief.
its as if you believe people require government to communicate, organize, or collaborate for mutual aid.
its what children believe lol.
she literally has no idea what she's talking about.
she think coordination requires the state.
nope. if its voluntary its not the government. that's the core of our whole argument and its going right over your head
and they are motivated by more than just money they're motivated to defend their homes, families, and the way of life their families enjoy.
lol, you defend ICE and they're killing people for trying to defend themselves. open your fucking eyes...
wrong.
god put us here to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.
and that's what we're doing.
god does. and he's an anarchist.
I wouldn't say that since He's literally the Lord of Everything... And anarchy means "no kings" so... That's not correct. Which is why I don't claim to be an anarchist.
Like setting the Patagonia forest on fire or like Maui fires?
Her opinions on these matters are awful all around😏🍿🍿
The strong are currently the ones who old all the power and I don't see them protecting the weak. Quite the opposite actually.
I'm not sure why you believe that when there is an abundance of history that clearly shows the strong resentlessly ABUSING the weak.
Heck yeah we can. God made us in his image, right? But not statists, they suck.
Hebrew letter "mem" - water, chaos, imagination
Nostr is aflame with Ghost today
Exactly correct. Christianity is true anarchism. That necessarily includes loving our neighbors, as Jesus told us. The alternative - distrust, hate - is product of Antichrist (our own sinful nature) and the state is the Beast, the monster that is produced from combining many antichrists. The beast rises from the water (collective imagination) in the west (west symbolizes death and ignorance, synonymous with Egypt).
Total atomization is probably not a good goal. Just decentralization down to the lowest point possible where we can make it too expensive to coerce us.
We're supposed to try. Expecting to achieve a utopia is silly, but not trying is worse by far.
That Kingdom is in our hearts. We, the living Church, are the Kingdom. He is our King.
[[book:: bible | Luke 17:20-21 | DRB]]
I might even try harder than anyone in this thread, but I know that I completely depend on Christ's Mercy and that I constantly fail Him.
The closer I get to the target, the more aware I am, of how much I have missed the mark. And the more sceptical I become, of people who claim that they rarely miss, or that they just need to get together with some people "on their level", to build Utopia.
Everything we do, on Earth, is merely best-effort. I hope we all get our participation trophy and I know that we are obliged to make the effort until He returns to reign as King. That is all that I know.
I'm sure Musolini would agree.
This is where I disagree. The strong is not a monolith. Some of the strong protect the weak, and some prey on them. There are different kinds of strength and they manifest in different ways, and history can take surprising turns.
*Are we, here, not among the strong?* Have we not created this digital space, with its just protocol, to govern it? So that the weak might have some place to run to, if they need it?
anarchists are by definition not a homogeneous group.
we share some values and many tools. Decentralization, consensus and price as a synchronization mechanism.
My lady, you're an anarchist in your heart and you don't even know it 😁
We didn’t do it for the weak. We did it for ourselves. Because we can. And because it’s interesting (the path for Thruth).
imperfection is what we expect and embrace.
(also there are examples in history where pure capitalism worked for centuries)
There are lots of interesting things to do.
And lots of interesting reasons to do it. Doing for the weak is one of the nobler.
He returns in you. You are either Christ or Antichrist. You choose at every moment.
Catholic anarchy is an oxymoron.
That's true, it isn't. But, you seem to have somewhat of a misunderstanding on the nature of power dynamics. The claim that we have created a just digital space as refuge for the weak presents several... problematic assumptions:
Those who believe they've created sanctuaries for the weak often fail to recognize that they remain the gatekeepers. This "just protocol" wasn't negotiated with the weak—it was designed by the strong, for the strong's conception of justice. The weak don't get to run to safety; they get to exist on terms set by others. It's the illusion of benevolence. At least, that seems to be the case with certain clients.
There's no clean division between "strong who protect" and "strong who prey." These categories blur constantly. Today's protector becomes tomorrow's enforcer of their own vision. The digital platforms initially praised as democratizing forces now engage in surveillance, algorithmic manipulation, and the extraction of user data as product. The strong who think they're building refuges are often only building more sophisticated cages.
Even if some strong individuals show restraint or benevolence, this doesn't change the fundamental power imbalance. The weak are still dependent on the strong's continued goodwill, which can be revoked at any point in time. A just protocol enforced by the strong is still their protocol, subject to their interpretation and modification. The weak have security only insofar as the strong permit it.
History's "surprising turns" usually involve one group of the strong displacing another—not the weak gaining genuine autonomy. Revolutions typically replace one elite with another. Your digital space, however well-intentioned, likely just redistributes power among different factions of the already-powerful.
So, all good works are futile.
If the assumption is that “good works” somehow make the weak strong, yes.
Nature works on a very simple principle, only the strong survive.
The weak, by definition, are not strong, and therefore don’t survive.
Only those who gain strength, survive, making them by definition, strong.
Changing the laws of nature is impossible, learning to manipulate them to one’s advantage is strength.
I'm not so sure about this.
On Catholicism and Anarchy, specifically on Dorothy Day:
https://mackseyjournal.scholasticahq.com/article/28404.pdf
Nothing by definition is a homogeneous group. We may be catholic in our heart and not know it. There is no absolute monopoly.
rules without a ruler.
(i've never thought God as a ruler)
Yes.
And no.
Yes if you want to get all ecclesiastical.
No, because God wins and all of heaven and earth will be remade.
I'm on team "create heaven on earth to bring order and peace on earth." Not catchy, but exact.
Christians aren't called to only do things for their own advantage. We live *in Nature*, and are limited by it, but we are eternal and therefore not *of Nature*, and focused on it.
An anecdote is not a statistic.
Yes and no.
My previous comment was meant as a critique of the limitations of "safe havens" like Nostr, not an attempt to get anyone to abandon their efforts. Even when imperfect, genuine benevolence still matters, as you're helping reduce the risk of potential suffering for others. But the power imbalance will never disappear. That is fact.
Dorothy Day appears to have been both Catholic and anarchist. I'm arguing these two practices aren't incompatible. What statistics would you be looking for?
Dorothy Day - Wikipedia
Distributists aren't anarchists.
Didn't condemn what they were doing? "You have made it a den of thieves." I don't think the word thieves is morally neutral language.
The two groups aren't mutually-exclusive, either.
>The distributists have also set themselves apart from the anarchists. Their critique of anarchism is largely a Rawlsian critique. John Rawls justified the existence of the State on the basis of assuming that people would prefer a society with some safety net or basic welfare system to a society without such a thing. The problem with this justification of statism is that it assumes that only statism can provide such a society. In reality, a consensus-based conciliar model of governance in a stateless society could also provide a welfare system. The members of the community could voluntarily contribute money towards universal basic income, universal healthcare insurance, and other such welfare measures. In fact, it is likely that any collectivistic, communist, or mutualist anarchist society would have some sort of welfare system in place. There is no reason why Rawls’ argument would lend support to a statist liberal democracy over a voluntaryist or anarchist society with a welfare system. And as long as an anarchist society can have rules and social order and a welfare system of some sort, then there is no reason that an anarchist society could not also be a distributist society.
The Anarchist Library
Anarcho-Distributism and Anarchist Federalism
W. J. Whitman Anarcho-Distributism and Anarchist Federalism
Yeah. But you're still missing the point, like most people.
Do you know significance of WHERE this incident took place? Do you know what was going on? Do you know why it offended Him so much that he literally flipped tables?
I think actually every individual holds the same power to change order all the time. There is no need of destruction.
I am pacifist. And very certain, that you do not build a good civilization through killing and destructing.
Correct.
Holding onto the idol of the state is only going to hinder you getting closer to the mark. In my actual humble opinion based on my concern for you as a fellow follower of Christ. 🫂💚
Sure, but...
In a hypothesis, if one thing is found to disagree with the hypothesis, it needs to be reworked.
If you think I'm lying about the anarchists I know, then that's an entirely different matter. If you believe me to be truthful about what I know, that shows that your premises are not correct and that you should revisit your logic.
It is an anachronism because the RCC has pretty much BEEN the state since the big kerfuffle between the bishop of Rome and the rest of the bishops.
And that, at the very based of things, is where my issue with the RCC starts. It's really hard for most Catholics to understand how steeped they are in statist ideology.
Why bother doing any good thing if it is only in our hearts?
The future coming Kingdom is one thing. Living and loving God's kingdom into existence in the here and now is part of what we as Christ followers are supposed to do.
Building a world via God's love is super hard, but it is the only thing to do, IMO. I want this world to be better around me because I am learning to love as Christ did.
No, there's a fundamental difference between replacing one dictator with a supposedly benevolent new one and replacing dictatorship with robust decentralized self-governance.
There will be backlashes and regressions, but social progress is real and relativism is cynical.
![Anhern Sarsalor [finally back]'s avatar](https://image.nostr.build/0ef9488eed98a6091f4c3aa85d4acde81615321da8f156bdd8020c6eca9125c3.jpg)
Our good works aren't merely external; they're the fruit of God's grace transforming us into His likeness.
Its in our hearts, so that we may be welcomed into His kingdom after our time has come.
As we love and serve, we become partakers of the divine nature. We don't build God's Kingdom, we cooperate with His will through genuine love, making heaven visible on earth, within our hearts and the hearts of those we care about.
Catholics don't have a general problem with human authority.
I'm not arguing their differences, I'm arguing that the majority of humanity rarely seems to want to take the more responsible route of self-governance. Human laziness combined with convenience always leads to a not-so-simple transition of power rather than the granting of genuine much-needed autonomy.
I agree. It is real. And yes, relativism is somewhat cynical, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hold influence over the decisions that individuals and society, as a whole, take.
Yes. I know.
And outside of the ecclesia, that is an issue.
Of course I do. I still don't think I am missing any points. Your claim is that he didn't condemn what they were doing, only where they were doing it. Except he literally called them thieves.
Also you have a tendency to read scripture in novel ways and then tell the rest of us that we are doing it wrong. We well might be, but have you ever wondered if you might not be just making stuff up?
No, he did not.
And no, I am not. That is not an original or novel idea, since I got it from a dude with a PhD in a bunch of biblical stuff.
To quote the relevant passage from Matthew 21 (NASB 2020):
12 And Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds, and He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. 13And He *said to them, “It is written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a den of robbers.”
Notice the specificity: He did NOT call them thieves.
They were conducting business, but INSIDE the temple *where* they were not supposed to do that. THAT was the issue.
I am VERY unoriginal in everything Biblical. I don't know enough to claim any authority, but I can read pretty well, and have learned to not read into the text.
To wit:
There's a Catholic source for you that seems to corroborate my reading.
So . . . Whatcha think?
Catholic Answers
Jesus Cleansing the Temple—Why and When?
All four Gospels record the fact that Jesus cleared the temple in Jerusalem of buyers and sellers. Why did he do this? What’s more, when did he d...
I think I owe you an apology. I knew most of that, but not the den of robbers terminology.
No apology necessary. Really.
I am always open to learning and, again, I know I'm not an expert or anything like that. But, I am studying earnestly and do not wish to lead anyone astray. I take the admonition that teachers (which I do not consider myself...) Very, very seriously.
If nothing else, take this as an opportunity to reading scripture with fresh eyes. 💚🫂
We evolved to hunt in hierarchical packs and to aggregate in larger herds with social conformity and contagions. Is it irresponsible to behave accordingly? If so, then this is because of cultural evolution. We value individual autonomy and strive for more efficient and just organizations of society. Institutions, education and technology help making such societal organizations more resilient.
How will Nostr contribute to increase efficiency and reduce oppression?
Hmm. Older translations say "thieves", not "robbers", and both have the same negative connotation. A robber is a subset of thief, focused on stealing from particular places and who uses aggression to get your goods, such as bank robbers and highway robbers. And as opposed to a "burglar" who is a stealthy thief who breaks into buildings. It is rather consequently described, in all retellings of the scene.
[[book:: Bible | Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16 | KJV]]
You say that He thought _what_ they were doing was fine, but that He was only angry about _where_ they were doing it, but they were actually notoriously shady characters, at the time, and their transactions were partly illegal and completely usurious.
NCR
Why Jesus Opposed the Moneychangers in the Temple
The Temple was a place of worship and praise and prayer and ritual sacrifice — not a place to exploit the poor
A. Older English translations that don't use sources corroborated by The Dead Sea scrolls are not, IMO, "good."
B. My contention is not the negative connotation of theif or robber. All translations have a negative word there.
C. I very much refuse to use The Talmud in any discussion since it is utterly, Contemptably disgusting and perverted beyond the pale. (Referring to the article you linked using the Talmud as the source of a supposition regarding what was taking place that brought Jesus to action.)
D. From the article:
Jeremiah 7:6, 9-11 . . . do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place . . . [9] Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD.
Jesus was quoting this passage. Where is the sin of usury mentioned in that passage?
Reading the sin of usury into that passage is a modern affliction. Please ask yourself "what is being robbed?" in the context of the original quote. There you will find your answers to the conundrum. Hint: in this case, it isn't about money.
So, again: no. Just plainly no.
If you want to exercise your imagination, then lets say that the money exchangers were being unlawful, and those selling doves to the poor were exploiting them. What then? Jesus could have chosen a bunch of other quotes to rebuke them as He drove them out. And yet, He didn't. So, again, we must ask ourselves why that is. And the answer (my friends, is blowing in the wind... Sorry... 🤣) revolves around the first part of the above quoted passage. What is being robbed? By whom?
I put forward that this is one of the least understood passages in the NT that I've pondered.