Given your ignorance and penchant for using scripture out of context and misinterpreting it, I'm going to take the time to correct you yet again.
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." -Proverbs 25:26
As the eminent Biblical scholar and theologian Gleason L. Archer PhD wrote in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
"How could God be called 'good' if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society.
No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought 'good' who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism.
All possibility of an ordered society would be removed on the abolition of any sort of police force. No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a 'good God' to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.
Not only is a proper and responsible policy of self-defense taught by Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but there were occasions when God even commissioned His people to carry out judgment on corrupt and degenerate heathen nations and the complete extermination of cities like Jericho (cf. the article on "Was Joshua justified in exterminating the population of Jericho?" in connection with Joshua 6:21). The rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy 20 represented a control of justice, fairness, and kindness in the use of the sword, and, as such, they truly did reflect the goodness of God."
Self-defense against evil is legitimized in scripture and natural law.
What ignorant people like you do is confuse legitimate self-defense with revenge. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.
Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance and to strike someone with it was an exorbitant fine. What's being communicated here is not the threat of bodily injury
but rather of insult.
The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant in that place and time. A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.
Of course, we don't want to start a fight to death or blood feud because someone insulted us. That; however, does not translate to Jesus ordering us to allow ourselves, our loved ones, and every innocent person on the planet to be victimized, robbed, assaulted, raped, enslaved and murdered by wicked people. The Bible teaches the opposite.
God permits life taking in self-defense ( Exod. 22:2 ), in capital punishment ( Gen. 9:6 ), and in just war (cf. Gen. 14:14–20 ). And when there is a theocratic command to do so, as in the case of Israel and the Canaanites, its moral justification is vouchsafed by God’s sovereignty.
In the New Testament, Jesus Himself nowhere circumvents the responsibility of the Christian to kill if necessary in the legitimate protection of his own life or family. In fact Jesus clarifies this in his Matthew 5:21 teaching has he chose a distinctive word (phoneuo) which means to murder not kill. Thayer (p. 657) states, it means "to commit murder." W.E. Vine (p. 291) states, "Pheneuo, to murder, akin tophoneus, a murderer." Etc... universal agreement on word usage.
It's not that Godly people get persecuted out of victim-mentalities, it's that people who really follow Jesus heed his nonviolent teachings and ''offer no resistance to the evil person'', as Jesus said. When an evil person strikes a Jesus follower, the Jesus follower does not resist. That alone means people like this are more easily persecuted than those who offer resistance. Offering resistance or not offering resistance, both are choices, of course, and being unwilling to retaliate and offering evil people no resistance makes persecution easier, but it also heaps great shame on persecutors.
It's much easier to justify bombing and killing people who retaliate and fight back and who someways perpetuate conflict, but it's impossible to justify persecuting someone who doesn't resist and who takes it with forgiveness, well-wishing and even in the most exceptional cases, with compassion towards their persecutors.
