>>3607
>But it does mean to not add to God's laws
What if one does not claim scripture strictly forbids racemixing, but puts forth a philosophical or otherwise extra-biblical reason as the primary basis of their opposition?
>Which only meant unrepentantly idolatrous non-Hebraic women
How about you substantiate that through exegesis instead of just asserting it. Until you do your argument is "the bible says X but it means Y not X"
>which meant practically all of them
Deuteronomy 28:30-34 says "You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her. You shall build a house, but you shall not dwell in it. You shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not enjoy its fruit. Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you shall not eat any of it. Your donkey shall be seized before your face, but shall not be restored to you. Your sheep shall be given to your enemies, but there shall be no one to help you. Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and fail with longing for them all day long, but you shall be helpless. A nation that you have not known shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors, and you shall be only oppressed and crushed continually, so that you are driven mad by the sights that your eyes see". Now I ask, is this prospect such a bad thing because it would mean widespread idolatry in the land, or is it a bad thing because God created and separated the nations of the earth, and it is assumed that we should cherish our tribe as the extension of our family? It is indeed striking that God should count national destruction the greatest curse He could bestow if we are to hold a worldview of racial apathy. If race is only skin deep, and nation merely a matter of culture, and Christians to not recognize tribe at all, then why should I find this curse to be punishment? After all, would it not be consistent from your perspective to simply not care that another nation eats up the fruit of my ground and of all my labors? Am I to believe this is lamentable because my children worship idols, not because they are enslaved and destroyed?
I think it is particularly significant when it says "You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall ravish her". What is the standard insult for these degenerate people in the west? Cuckold. Each of these individual examples in the curse are just metaphors for general national replacement, so what is cuckolding on a national/racial scale? Miscegenation.
And is it not also noteworthy that this curse is promised for national apostasy, and the nations of Europe, especially those which once shone forth with the light of the gospel before the whole world, which have now become apostate, are struck with this very curse? Is this not the blueprint of Europe's destruction? Yet we are Christians, living in the new covenant.
>But the man who transmitted that law was himself married to a non-Hebraic woman who was faithful to God
It was a strange exception for them. Do you think ancient Israel was some modernistic cosmopolitan utopia? Nationalistic does not even describe the extent of their xenophobia. When miscegenation ceases to be strange and exceptional, but is normalized beyond that, it becomes sinful, because it is rebellion against God's creation of race and nation.
>The Galatians passage is about one's identity within the covenantal unity of Christ's kingdom
Which is precisely why it does not undermine the reality of race and nation or the separation thereof, because these things are earthly. We should segregate the Church by segregating the nations. Hard to have a racially diverse church when the nation is not racially diverse.
>Nice try doing what Marxists and feminazis try to do with Galatians 3:26-28
Astoundingly little self-awareness
>Guess what Jesus will do in the Parousia and New Earth!
Well I can tell you what He will do before then: destroy this world and its rules. Nice try with the blasphemy comparing Jesus to the beast.