My problem with it is perhaps semantic, though to a degree that's problematic to what's left of my mind.
Until then we must not engage in acts of violence or retaliate with violence
The verb retaliate above is, imho, simply loaded with a self-shackling negative connotation in that it implies any resistance to evil to be 'violent', hence unacceptable somehow.
I've lived my life by the rule of not taking the first swing, but said rule does not oblige me to allow that swing to connect !
Should zombie rabble decide to swing up this driveway threatening me/mine, it is absolutely not incumbent upon me to allow them to connect with blows or bullets before responding.
As many as possible of those that attempt harm will be met with lethal force.
Such is my duty both as a man and a responsible citizen.
Said admonition strikes me as a re-wording of the whole 'turn the other cheek' thing with which I'm in firm disagreement, and posted the following to that effect here just awhile ago:
That whole (other cheek) concept always struck me as something disturbingly similar to an unfunded mandate.
Especially from one who supposedly kicked ass and took names amongst the moneychanger set.
If that's blasphemous/heretical/etc then so be it.
If whatever God is has a problem with good people protecting their loved ones and their work, or with defensive martial acts against evil bastards raping our Nation, then please mark me down as firmly in the 'heathen' column.
ymmv .. cheers
Why do you think such numerically inferior groups are ramping up the violent rhetoric? Are they stupid and can’t count? Perhaps.
But more likely, they’ve been given the implicit promise that the government will back them if the other side “retaliates”.
I absolutely agree, if they threaten me or mine, I will “retaliate”. But this is what they are pushing for - someone they are bullying to actually fight back.
At that point, look for the race/victim card to be shouted from the rooftops, and demands made that the government do something about these “cracker vigilantes” that are “attacking” the poor, downtrodden victims of society.
Nonviolence is profoundly agressive. It is not a reaction to violence. It instigates violence. Jesus was, indeed, in your face. He took names and personally assaulted evil doers with the power of moral outrage. The outrage he instigated led to his death.
Ultimately he defeated evil and death with his ressurection. He died once that all of us might be saved. Saved not from death but from the sting of death, that we might live with him eternally.
Dare I say it. A good death exposes the root of evil and the power of God’s love.
‘Turn the other cheek’ implicitly refers to a level of violence that is well below damage or destruction. It refers to an act that can be brushed aside if the ego is controlled. That, I believe is the point of the injunction, the HEART not the cheek.