Turning the other check is contrary to all game theory.
God gave us love of self so we would defend ourselves, and contunue to do his works.
Do not confuse your enemy with your neighbor.
Give ‘em hell, Harry!
You've got yourself a great tagline there.
I suggest reading Emmet Fox's “The Sermon on the Mount”.
In short, it has nothing whatsoever to do with not defending yourself if physically attacked. It has to do with spiritually conquering the inclination for hatred and revenge.
“Turning the other check is ..” ~ Born to Conserve
That admonishment must be understood within the context of what it meant in ancient culture. The meaning is __just the opposite__ of a “pacifist” response.
Just the opposite.
Luke 6:27-8 and Matthew 5:39-41 —
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
“[Some interpret] these commands as directives to tolerate injustice and be a doormat, and say “such precepts require the obliteration of one’s capacity to distinguish the good from the evil.” [323] Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. “Resist not evil” is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them.
Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange.
It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. The cloak/tunic bit must be recognized in terms of the ancient Jewish customary process of making good pledge on one’s debts by handing over a valuable item as collateral; for most people in this time, items of clothing were the only thing suitable. In essence, the teaching is to provide surety of repayment of a justly-decided debt, even to those who are enemies.
Finally, the double-mileage command refers in context to the legal right a Roman soldier had to make any person carry their belongings for up to one mile. As you might imagine, this was not a popular requirement in the neighborhood of Palestine, but it was the law, and the teaching again is in essence, do it, and do it without complaint, even though the Roman is your enemy. And if you need to know why, consider that your resultant testimony as a member of God’s kingdom (for the Sermon on the Mount is composed of instructions for just that set) is far, far more important than a few mild inconveniences or insults to your person...not that [some] would agree, having no recognition of the kingdom in the first place. Nevertheless, [some] analysis is completely oblivious to both the context and the intent of the teaching. ..” http://tektonics.org/qt/smithg01.html
<>
“Let’s begin with Scripture, and some observational notes from the sociological well of Malina and Rohrbaugh’s Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics.
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Science-Commentary-Synoptic-Gospels-Malina/dp/0800634918 Now a favored argument of skeptics against “un-Christian” behavior of ridicule is to place such behavior against admonitions to “turn the other cheek.” Is it proper to do so?” http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html
The Cross is contrary to all game theory.