I do, according to christian doctrine Jesus sacrificed himself for humanity’s sins. That sacrifice wouldn’t be particularly meaningful if it came with expectation for everybody to follow through. As much as I am not a fan of this (or any other) religion, I’m pretty sure it’s not a suicide pact.
I think getting killed for your belief is exactly what Jesus was arguing for. It was also what all apostles did and the only cause for the next 300 years to be declared a saint.
Jesus' death was special, because he was without sins, he was the son of God (YMMV) and, because was walking around afterwards physically (i.e. capable of touching and eating, etc.) on earth. I am not sure, why you name it suicide, because he didn't killed himself, he got himself killed.
I do not think, that Jesus would defend "the agressor". But fighting in return is also not good, which is where "turning the other cheek" comes into play.
Yep, as a sacrifice. Using this as a justification for aggressive war against a christian nation is not only extremely intellectually dishonest, but against the doctrine as well.
As with everything, it's open to interpretation, but you don't turn your other cheek expecting to be hit again; it's meant to signal defiance not resignation.
I guess, but "defiance" can mean anything, and the passage is telling you not to resist. It's about not participating in a violent conflict to begin with. It's definitely not "I f'ing dare you to try that again".