Apologetics Leo I

Published on December 8th, 2010 | by Bojidar Marinov


The Church, the Barbarians, and the Growth of Christianity

Leo I

In 452 a Christian bishop left the City of Rome on a journey north to the river Po. His goal was a diplomatic mission that would shake the world. A Christian bishop was sent by the Emperor to save Rome. It’s been a little over twenty years since Augustine (354-430) died, and Augustine had to defend Christianity against pagan claims that the gods were angry against Rome because of the Christians. Rome wasn’t Christian yet – the majority of its population was still pagan. And now a Christian bishop was on a mission to save the lives, the liberties, and the property of both Christians and pagans.

The Bishop’s name was Leo I, Bishop of Rome. He was on his way to meet the Scourge of God, the most formidable threat the Empire had ever met, Attila the Hun.

The last time a Christian bishop shook the world was 60 years earlier when Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, threatened Emperor Theodosius with excommunication unless he repented for the massacre of 7,000 tax-protesters in Thessalonika. No one ever threatened a Roman Emperor before. No priest ever dared stand in the way of the civil authorities when they collected the taxes. Theodosius was a battle-hardened veteran. He had accompanied his father who put down a rebellion in Britain and Gaul by the united forces of the local Celtic tribes and deserters from the Roman Army. He was the last great emperor of the united Roman Empire. And he was an orthodox, Trinitarian Christian with a vengeance. But the Bishop of Milan treated him like a Barbarian for the massacre of those tax-protesters. Theodosius replied in anger that he was coming to seize Ambrose’s church and drag Ambrose out. Ambrose’s reply was a revolution in the ancient world: “You have no right to enter a private person’s home. What makes you believe you have the right to enter God’s home?”

Theodosius’ response was the response of a true Christian: He repented. His soul was saved. But the Empire wasn’t the same anymore. The fearless defense by Ambrose of the life, liberty and property of those ordinary people who paid taxes put an end to the absolute rule of the Emperors. Ambrose was the hero of the ordinary people. Christianity grew in influence, and in numbers. If the Bishop could stand his ground against the Emperor, how much greater must that Bishop’s God be!

But Leo had a different challenge: He was meeting a real Barbarian in an attempt to persuade him not to attack Rome. Attila hasn’t been known for his love for Christian clergy. In the cities in the Balkans and in Gaul that he took and massacred, Christian priests were the first to die. Some commentators say that Attila added to the list of Christian martyrs almost as many as the two and half centuries of pagan Roman power before Constantine. Leo’s position wasn’t easy. Attila was a master negotiator, and he had no moral restraints. He was unpredictable, and he could break his word without having a second thought about it. He was a Barbarian, after all.

But Leo had to succeed. Behind him was Rome, and the population of Rome, helpless, paralyzed by fear, apathy, and despair. Just as Ambrose stood up to Theodosius to protect the weak, Leo had to stand up against the Barbarian to protect Rome. The life, liberty, and property of the ordinary citizens of Rome were a legitimate concern for a Christian pastor, and he had to face death if necessary to protect the defenseless.

No one knows what Leo said to Attila. Some say he gave him lots of money. That hardly would have worked on Attila. He was smart enough to know that there was even more where that money came from. Some say Attila’s army was restless because of disease, and because of rumors of their towns in the rear being attacked by the forces of the Eastern Empire. This may have been, although Attila had proved quite resourceful in dealing with greater challenges. Whatever Leo said, Attila turned back, never to return. That winter Attila died – some say of too much drinking, some say he was killed by his wife.

Rome was defended by a Christian Bishop. The influence of Christianity grew even more.

When three years later, in 455, the fleet of another Barbarian, the Vandal king Genseric, appeared in full surprise at the mouth of the Tiber, Leo didn’t have the time to negotiate. Petronius Maximus who had become Western Roman Emperor just two months earlier, tried to leave the city rather than fight the Barbarians, and was killed by angry mobs.

So it was now again the Bishop against the Barbarian. And this time the Barbarian wasn’t going back without plunder.

So Leo at least tried to protect the life and the dignity of his fellow Romans. He negotiated the terms with Genseric: Plunder, yes, but no arson, no rape, no killing. Genseric agreed. Rome was sacked, but the dignity of the individual ordinary citizens was spared. Leo’s goal was again to protect the weak, the defenseless, the little people. And he succeeded.

Rome’s glory had passed – if we mean Rome’s glory as an Imperial capital. But Leo I’s actions created a different glory for Rome. The City of Rome had now become the Christian capital of the world, the arbiter of theological disputes, the judge between kings, Christian and pagan. One Bishop’s concern for the fate of the people, and his courage and skill in protecting them without a sword changed the religious and cultural landscape of Italy, and then of Western Europe. We don’t hear of pagan populations in Rome after the death of Leo. Leo’s God had judged the Empire, but He had also honored the prayers and the efforts of His servant, and had protected the inhabitants. No other evangelism was needed for the eradication of paganism in Italy.

* * * * * * * * * *

Today, Barbarians have been at the gates of the Western civilization for several generations. Atheists, socialists, Fabian Socialists, statists, and evolutionists attacked Christendom. The pastors were relatively silent.

Then the Barbarians took over the political power in the West and started sacking Western civilization. The pastors were silent again, for the most part.

Here in the United States the Barbarians established the Federal Reserve to steal the savings of the population. The pastors didn’t say anything. Then they introduced the income tax. The pulpits were silent. Then the State schools began stealing Christian children. Then the unborn – the most defenseless members of our society – were subjected to the greatest massacre ever known in history. The Barbarian State introduced new laws to control our business, our work, our savings, our old age. Judges decreed private property wasn’t immune to seizure anymore. Our health – and therefore life and death – is now in the hands of the Federal government.

The pastors were silent.

Well, at least our dignity was spared. At least we didn’t have Barbarians stripping us, groping us, raping us. Maybe the churches would intervene when that thing happens.

It happened. Federal agents can now legally ogle our daughters and sexually molest our 5-year old sons. Barbarians are not at the gates of the city anymore; they are at the airport check-points. And they rape, this time in earnest.

But the pastors don’t say anything. The great influential Christian ministries of this nation remain silent, several weeks into the greatest sexual rape this nation has ever seen. We see activist groups, politicians, media anchors, bloggers discussing, calling for action, protesting against the Barbarian rape of America.

One group has remained strangely silent: Christian churches and ministries.

Or, rather not. They keep talking. They keep telling us how wonderful our salvation in Jesus is. Or they keep informing us that we are saved by grace alone. And they keep being interested in those intricate details of Christian psychology, how important it is to have forgiveness. Maybe they should add, to have forgiveness when your children are raped by Barbarians, when the Bishops are too cowardly to stand up to those Barbarians and tell them to go away, in the name of God.

And then the pastors and the ministers bemoan the fact that Christianity is losing influence. We live in a post-Christian world, don’t we? What we do in a world that doesn’t seek Jesus anymore. How we are to “have hope in Jesus” while our nation and our world are going farther away from the faith of our fathers.

But the influence of Christianity doesn’t just happen magically. It is a direct function of the willingness of Christians to witness for Christ and His salvation of the whole world (Rom. 10:14-15). And a great part of this witness is the willingness of the pastors to stand up to the Barbarians in the gates and protect the life, liberty, and property of those who can’t defend themselves. When the pastors are not willing to proclaim the God of Jesus Christ to the Barbarians to protect the people, we can’t expect evangelism of the ordinary church members to prosper. If the pastors are silent, the sheep are not led. Evangelism suffers, and Christianity declines.

Those pastors and ministers who speak of a great apostasy in “the last days” are themselves the great apostates. Their silence is the great sign of the apostasy of the church. When the life, liberty, and property of the people are violated by Barbarians, any pastor who doesn’t stand up to the Barbarians in the civil government and work to protect the people is an apostate himself. The decline of Christianity is caused by those who claim to bemoan it; those that admonish us from the pulpits to “have hope in God” while we are being raped by Barbarians are the very reason for that religious and cultural decline. The revival of Christianity will start when God smites the pulpits and replaces the corrupt shepherds with shepherds after His own heart; shepherds who will fearlessly face the Huns and the Vandals of our day, and make them turn back to the wilderness where they came from.

* * * * * * * * * *

Leo I wasn’t even obsessed with expanding the influence of the Roman see, nor with diplomacy. His main interests were theological. He was a faithful defender of orthodoxy, not a skillful politician. When in 448 Eutyches was deposed in the East for his heretical views concerning the nature of Christ, he took refuge with Leo in Rome. Leo ignored the opportunity to expand the influence of Rome in the Eastern Empire and waited for an explanation from Flavian, Eutyches’ chief opponent. When learning about Eutyches’ heretical views, Leo sided decisively with the Trinitarian orthodoxy. The Bishop of Rome was a theologian first, and diplomat and politician last.

But when the Barbarians were at the gates, he had to act.

We need Leos today to man our pulpits.

Print Friendly

About the Author

A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/

34 Responses to The Church, the Barbarians, and the Growth of Christianity

  1. alex alexander says:

    Hi Bojidar,
    Another very insightful, helpful article. I’m bouncing it on…
    We’re with you, brother.
    Thanks again,
    Alex A (UK)

  2. ThirstyJon says:

    I won’t defend the TSA and it’s searches, but however wrong they are they are not motivated by the desire to rape and molest.

    Don’t misunderstand me – I am NOT saying that the searches are not out of bounds; but it takes away from understanding the horror of actual rape and molestation to make the comparison. This is akin to calling all sorts of non-violent acts “terrorism,” thus watering down the meaning of that word.

    There are so many other issues that could have been the focus, I wish you would have left the TSA one out of the article.

    • The focus is not TSA but the silence of the pastors, Jon. That’s why the bulk of the article is about Leo – a pastor – and therefore the modern focus are the modern pastors in a way of comparison. TSA is there to illustrate a point, just like Attila. By the same logic, you could have said that there were so many other issues in the ancient world that could have been the focus, I could have left Attila out of the article. But Attila serves to illustrate Leo’s courage and pastoral care, and therefore TSA serves to illustrate the modern Christian ministers’ cowardice.

      Concerning the actual motivation of the TSA administration, enough has been written to prove that the “screening methods” contribute nothing to security. TSA knows this very well. The goal must be something else – and it is not security for sure. Concerning the motives of TSA employees, I want to know what decent person, when commanded to grope children, old men and women, or watch nude pictures of them, would still remain at the same job.

      I have an issue with the following words of yours:

      …but it takes away from understanding the horror of actual rape and molestation to make the comparison. This is akin to calling all sorts of non-violent acts “terrorism,” thus watering down the meaning of that word.

      Now, this is dangerous reasoning. Developed to its logical end, it will only help desensitize us to less outrageous acts of violating our life, liberty, and property by comparing them to more outrageous acts. When we get used to less outrageous acts, then we will be taken a little further, and then a little further, and we know where it ends.

      I think you need to have an issue with the Founding Fathers then. Compared to the taxes and regulations in Europe at the time, or with taxes and regulations in America today, they shouldn’t have revolted against such small things as listed in the Declaration of Independence! Read the Declaration. Most of the things listed there are accepted as common sense today. Should we then say that the Declaration “takes away from understanding the horror of actual tyranny to make the comparison”?

      No, Jon, I have seen the actual outworking of this principle, and I cannot agree with it. A freedom-loving person doesn’t compare lesser acts of tyranny, oppression, rape, molestation, etc., to greater such acts, they compare them to the desired state of freedom and liberty, just as the Founders did. And if TSA searches are incompatible with liberty, then they are rape and molestation, just like the Tea Act and the Stamp Act were acts of tyranny at the time. TSA’s sexual molestation of America citizens is today just as a central issue as was the two shillings and sixpence tax on a pound of tea in 1776.

      • Joel Petersen says:

        The bottom line is that there is a demonic principality that over-sees this socialistic movement to take over the American culture and one aspect of the strategy is submission of our personal rights. Therefore the underlying driving motovation of the TSA.

        • Nick Kane says:

          You’re right Joel, but socialism isn’t “demonic” it’s…depravity. Socialism is the result of the inward conjuring of man’s selfishness and pride manifesting itself in an outward display of man’s depravity. There is nothing supernatural about this. It’s all flesh.

  3. Nagao Kegatora says:

    The responses to this article just illustrate once again, as if more illustration was necessary, that most Yanks are either thick or just completely stupid. To take an article such as this and draw inferences about race from it…that’ll do me – you lot are a disgrace. The issue, Lea Davidson, “Shotgun”, and “Regenerated4Life”, is not race or nationality, but culture. And, unfortunately but obviously, you all need to be told that culture is religion externalized (Henry Van Til).

    What was Leo the Great doing? He was living out his religion in going to visit Atilla – he wasn’t addressing him on the basis that he was gaijin, and therefore wasn’t allowed to visit Rome. He was addressing him as a Pagan, who had just as much right to visit Rome as anyone, but not for the purposes he intended. That’s Christianity in action. The attitude displayed here by some people is anything but.

    Also, Cathy, in arguing on behalf of Arius, is on dangerous ground. Referring to Arius as a great man of God is akin to saying the same about Joseph Smith (he invented the Mormons, if anyone needed to be told). I would suggest she take & read Rushdoony’s “Foundations of Social Order” – I would’ve hoped that, having posted on this website, and therefore sharing the same presuppositions as this website, she would already have read it, but obviously not.

    • joe m says:

      Nagao: I think there is an ongoing spat here between some of the people you mentioned – who may or may not be “yanks” – and they seem to continue their argument throughout different posts. And you can’t automatically assume they share the same presuppositions of the web site, it appears that some of them are coming here to attack those presuppositions from a pagan point of view. Hopefully they can see past all of that and take your advice.

      • Shotgun says:

        To be more accurate, Mr. Joe M, you should say that there are some people who consistently criticize various American Vision articles from the standpoint of a “worldview” that is unpopular at the moment.

        (Given my position’s unpopularity in a society that slaughters infants, one would think that Christians, at least, would be willing to give it a sort of surface legitimacy.)

        You talk about “presuppositions” and I need not remind you that the term is more than just a “buzz-word” in popular Christian writings.

        I have self-consciously reflected on many aspects of my “worldview” and it is derived directly from a historically orthodox Reformed disposition. This is in contrast to those who, like Mr. Marinov (and presumably you as well, in light of the tone you’ve taken here) have not self-consciously reflected on many aspects of their worldview and simply take various things for granted. What sort of things? Well, like the legitimacy of attitudes in modern society concerning race and nationality. (Should we canonize MLK Jr’s writings?)

        I would ask you to consider making the best of your opponent’s position before trying to critique it, and at the very least, if you’re going to warn others about a position (there-by presenting yourself as an authority of sorts) you should take all the more care in your presentation. (But this is just personal advice from one Christian to another. As far as the arguments are concerned, you can be as obnoxious or out-of-sorts as you’d like.)

        Just remember: It’s easy to present yourself as an authority on a subject when no one’s watching.

    • Amen. Preach it, Nagao.

    • Shotgun says:

      I would love to discuss this with you in the forums, Nagao.

      I don’t usually watch the blasphemous cartoon “Family Guy” but Rush Limbaugh made a guest appearance once, so I checked it out. At one point, Brian the dog is walking past a back-ally, and sees a gang of guys spray painting a wall, and says: “Oh no! It’s one of those ridiculous, made-for-tv multicultural street-gangs!” The gang approaches, and the leader says: “We’re going to beat you up! But not because of your race, because we’re not like that!”

      The gag was hilarious and poked fun at the retarded (yes, that is the correct adjective for this situation) view most Christians have towards race issues.

      Imagine Leo I standing on a hill, looking at the approaching hoards and thinking: “These guys need to be stopped! But, not because of their race, because, we’re not like that!”

      The attitudes displayed by you, Nagao and Mr. Marinov, are why Christians are not taken seriously today.

      Call me what you want…frankly: time will be my best, though perilous, apology.

    • Lea Davidson says:

      Kegger wrote,

      //The responses to this article just illustrate once again, as if more illustration was necessary, that most Yanks are either thick or just completely stupid. “To take an article such as this and draw inferences about race from it…that’ll do me – you lot are a disgrace. The issue, Lea Davidson, “Shotgun”, and “Regenerated4Life”, is not race or nationality, but culture. And, unfortunately but obviously, you all need to be told that culture is religion externalized (Henry Van Til).//

      Well, good for me that I’m not a Yank but a “Jenny Reb.”

      And the inference drawing started with American Vision who placed a picture of a Black Pope Leo I as the photo to go with this article. Was this accidental or subtle political correctness? Look up the History. Leo I was not black. So, it was Marinov and/or American Vision that made this about race.

      Now, in terms of your assertions about culture you seem to have the same problem that Mr. Marinov has and that is an unwillingness to understand that culture and ethnicity are inextricably bound up together so that who God has created us a peoples likewise effects, along with religion, how culture manifests itself. It simply is not the case that culture is solely religion externalized so that if the Mongolian believed the same exact things that a Inuit believed that the Mongolian and the Inuit would have the exact same culture. I’ve read Van Til on culture and profited greatly by Van til but it would be better to say that culture is religion externalized as it is poured over ethnicity.

      So, the assertion that culture is religion externalized believed to the degree that if Shona’s and Belorussians just believed the same propositions they would produce the same culture is fatuous and not worthy of being taken seriously.

      Such a belief also inevitably leads to a kind of Christian Globalism where all people are the same in culture because they believe the same thing. The book of Revelation, with its entering of the NationS into the New Jerusalem puts the lie to this essentially Unitarian Belief. The effect of the Gospel success will not be a uniform culture but will be unity in diversity. There will be many different types of Christian culture but they will still all be legitimately considered Christian.

      Nago wrote,

      “What was Leo the Great doing? He was living out his religion in going to visit Atilla – he wasn’t addressing him on the basis that he was gaijin, and therefore wasn’t allowed to visit Rome. He was addressing him as a Pagan, who had just as much right to visit Rome as anyone, but not for the purposes he intended. That’s Christianity in action. The attitude displayed here by some people is anything but.”

      Visit Rome? Atilla was coming as a tourist?

      Bluster all you want about Atilla … just keep in mind that he was known as — and comes down to us as — “the Hun.” Atilla was known as “Atilla the Pagan.”

      There is a reason for that.

  4. Karen Gushta says:

    Very thought provoking article. Thank you!

  5. Cathy says:

    I don’t think the safety people at the airports are consciously raping the people they screen, except in some cases. I think people should be profiled and that would cut down on the need to do the screening for a lot of people. I feel “raped” watching TV or dealing with my boss who demands many hours of overtime without extra pay, becasue their is intent involved.

    Also, many non-trinitarians in the early church history where great men of God. Arius was going to be reinstated as a bishop, still faithfully believing in Christ (the Son of God – NOT an angel or spirit being) as seperate from God the Father. The night before his reinstatement he died suddenly. I believe he was murdered.

  6. Lea Davidson says:

    I’d love to know Mr. Marinov’s source for Cicero’s comments on the Celts. Here is another quote that questions Mr. Marinov’s conclusions.

    “Classical writers said that the Celts were taller than the Romans, more muscular, had fair skin, and blonde hair was common. The Celts were known for their hospitality, but could be boastful and irritable. They were fond of feasting, were high-spirited, and in general liked excitement. Yet, in Rome, culturally sophisticated Cicero was able to become friends with a Celtic druid from Gaul named Diviciacus, and Cicero said that a Celtic leader from Galatia named Dejotarus was “gentle and honest.” The ancients said that the Celts liked to speak in riddles, and loved to exaggerate. Some Celtic tribes had a sense of wanderlust and were nomadic (often in response to threats from the outside), while others stayed put in farming communities.”


    The author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on “Celtic Languages” says that the ancient Celts had a higher degree of social organization than the Germanic tribes. Poseidonius (considered the most learned man of his day, and tutor to Cicero) said the Germanic tribes were somewhat less civilized than the Celts (1). Julius Caesar said the Celts of Gaul had superior valor in comparison to the German tribes (2). – from the same aritcle

    Secondly, Mr. Marinov quite misses the point of having affection for one’s own people. That affection isn’t anchored in superiority but only in the fact that ones own people is one’s own people. It reveals Mr. Marinov’s alienist mindset that he can not imagine having natural affection for one’s own simply because they are one’s own. So what if my people are so stupid that they can’t appreciate Christian Cultural Marxism … they are still, my people.

    Also, Mr. Marinov reveals his continued and stubborn misunderstanding of the subject when he writes,

    “(Familialism) is all about a false sense of superiority based not on merit or faith or culture, but on genes. Tribalists praise their own stock just like a dog breeder would praise the superior breed of dogs he sells.”

    No Christian people would ever say anything but, “We are the chief of sinners.” Familialism does not not deny sin, and if it does embrace superiority it embraces the superiority of the man who believes that his own mother is superior to all other mothers. Does Mr. Marinov really condemn people who prefer their own mother to other people’s mothers? Still, familialism recognizes the differing superiority that one can find among all different people groups. Not all peoples have the same strengths (superiority) or the same weaknesses (inferiority). Is it so difficult to admit that not all people are the same?

    One wonders if Pope Leo I was Marxist because he referred to Atilla as “the Hun?” And no familialist would disagree that if the individual Atilla becomes a Christian he is now a Christian Hun, though being a Christian Hun doesn’t mean that Atilla would become the same exact person as Christian Lombards or Christian Picts. Conversion doesn’t make all people the same.

    Finally, it is Mr. Marinov’s Cultural Marxist Christianity that is “uneducated.” No people before 80 years ago and the triumph of full flowered jacobinism would have taught that all peoples are the same. Mr. Marinov is at best, a Unitarian and at worst a cultural marxist Wolf in Christian sheep clothing.

    • joe m says:

      Just wondering, when you say, “Classical writers”, to whom are you referring, i.e. time period in relation to the Celts they were describing and their own heritage (or tribe or genes, etc)?

      • Shotgun says:

        The “Classical Writers say…” bit was from an article that was being cited. Further information can be found by clicking on the link provided.

    • Joe Mudd says:

      You have got to be kidding me. THAT is the best you’ve got. My comment to your comment is simply
      So whats your point? That is a lot of writing for nothing.

      • Lea Davidson says:

        Dear Mudd,

        You are reduced to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming …. “Am not, Am not, Am not.”

        In short … your response did not have a point for me to respond to.

  7. Kay Till says:

    “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.” Proverbs 31:8-9 (NLT)

    I agree with Maryanne. We don’t need ONE Leo, we need MILLIONS of Leo’s to speak up for what is right and demand that the barbarians cease raping and pillaging the people of this nation while filling their pockets full of the people’s money. Our nation’s founders never envisions “professional” politicians. They envisioned citizen statesmen who served their country and then went home. What we have now is a travesty.

    We need millions of Christians to find their voice and stand for what is right, and not refrain from stating in a loving way that we are doing so because we believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. We must make it clear that we do not HATE those who are bound by sin, but rather, we hate the sin, itself, that keeps these individuals from receiving all that God has for them and for their lives. We cannot remain silent or we become a part of the lies, and the sin, itself. Silence = complicity = approval. Jesus said that if we will not confess Him before men, neither will He confess us before the Father.

  8. I usually don’t respond to pagan tribalists here but I will say this: For most of the early church history the Barbarians were the Germans and the Celts. It is no coincidence that the modern word “vandalism” comes the name of a Germanic tribe, the Vandals. And it is no coincidence that the Celtic tribes were the first to fall under Rome, despite their numerical superiority. We know from history that the Romans considered the Celts the dumbest of all inhabitants in Europe. This is confirmed by Apostle Paul’s words to the “foolish Galatians.” Germans weren’t any better, being called by both Greeks and Slavs “the Dumb Ones.” In the 9th century the German nobility was so ashamed of the stupidity of their own people that they talked in German only to their horses, and used Latin to converse to each other.

    So if genetics really played any role, there is no reason whatsoever for the representatives of these two genetic stocks to hold any pride. If genes made Celts and Germans dumb in the past, genes certainly make them dumb now.

    Amazingly though, no tribal chauvinistic primitive ever admitted that his own genes are inferior. Tribalism cares nothing about facts or history; it is all about having a false sense of superiority based not on merit or faith or culture, but on genes. Tribalists praise their own stock just like a dog breeder would praise the superior breed of dogs he sells.

    Apparently, it is not DNA, it is the Christian religion that made Europe what she is. To say that “Pedro” is “Barbarian” because of his genes is covert Marxism: Marxism is based on materialistic determinism, that material circumstances (e.g. economic position, genes, climate, etc.) determine cultural and intellectual and moral characteristics. Pedro is Barbarian when he is not a Christian, when he becomes a Christian, he is a true man of civilization.

    The real Barbarians in this discussion are those tribal racist primitives who can only see skin color because they haven’t grown up morally, intellectually, and culturally to see beyond the constraints of their tribal primitivism. I suppose, based on their own criteria, their genes are just inferior and make them plain stupid. Based on my criteria, they are pagans who are trying to jump on the bandwagon of Christianity to legitimize their own primitive superstition in a world that is educated by Biblical Christianity to not take them seriously anymore.

    • Shotgun says:

      Was Leo I a tribalist then, Mr. Marinov? He made distinctions between the Romans and the invading Huns. He must have been a Marxist in Christian guise!

      But putting that rhetorical question aside, there is much historical commentary that disagrees with your brief statements about the Celts (not that the statements about the Celts were in any prima-facie way relevant to this particular discussion.):

      “The author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on “Celtic Languages” says that the ancient Celts had a higher degree of social organization than the Germanic tribes. Poseidonius (considered the most learned man of his day, and tutor to Cicero) said the Germanic tribes were somewhat less civilized than the Celts. Julius Caesar said the Celts of Gaul had superior valor in comparison to the German tribes.” – http://www.realmagick.com/6305/story-of-the-celts-the-ancient-celts/

      These facts cry out for a clarification in your scholarship Mr. Marinov.

      As it is now, it seems that you’re attacking a straw-man in order to win an irrelevant argument.

      This article remains a wonderful cry-to-arms for Europeans to rise up and defend themselves (in light of the Gospel truth given to us by God) against the invading barbarians who seek to plunder everything good that our ancestors (and their posterity) have been blessed with.

      • “Was Leo I a tribalist then, Mr. Marinov? He made distinctions between the Romans and the invading Huns.”

        This only comes to confirm that tribalists’ reading comprehension – or any comprehension whatsoever – is so low that they are intellectually incompatible with the Western civilization.

        Leo I did not make any genetic distinctions between the Romans and the invading Huns. The distinctions were religious: Barbarians vs. the civilization. The Huns themselves were a mixed stock, as were the Romans, genetically. Later, when Leo defended Romans against the Vandals, he didn’t exclude the Germanic immigrants among the Rome’s inhabitants – there is no mention of genetic differences.

        But as I said, a tribal primitivist can’t see beyond skin color. Everything in his sight is skin color, skin color, skin color. Whatever he sees, he only sees skin color. I don’t expect Shot Dumb to be different.

        The author of Encyclopedia Britannica is not old enough to compare with Cicero and other Romans in direct contact with the Celts of the time. If Cicero said the Celts were too dumb to be even slaves, he had a direct economic incentive. And yes, the Germans were even dumber. That’s why we Slavs call the Germans “Nemcy,” which means “Dummies,” a remnant of those pagan times.

        If you wish to insist on the genetic determinism, at least be consistent and accept the historical facts. The myth of the Celtic civilization is a modern myth – the ancient sources mention nothing of it. Celts became civilized people only after they became Christian: And that’s the truth, culture is determined by religion, and only by religion.

        I spent too much time here explaining reality to tribesmen. I will leave you now to insist on your pagan superstitions.

        • Regenerated4Life says:

          So then ‘you Slavs’ are superior to the rest of us? Is this why you are doing so much work for your ‘Slavic people’? You racist, you! How dare you do any sort of work at all for the ‘Slavic people’ while ignoring the Nigerians! You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Don’t you know that American money is meant for Haitians?

        • Lea Davidson says:

          The bigger problem here for Mr. Marinov is that even if he’s right, he’s wrong. Even if we granted him his assertion that the Celts were uniquely stupid, that wouldn’t prove his position, but ours.

          He’s presupposing familialism even as he argues against it.

        • Shotgun says:

          I’ve been reading Cicero all morning and can’t find the passage that Mr. Marinov repeatedly alludes to.

          I’d like to point out a philosophical consideration:

          I could distinguish between two propositions: “Hero” and “awkward coward”…but, guess what, the two propositions apply to the same object, Superman! Sometimes Superman is a hero, sometimes a coward (when he’s disguised as Clark Kent.) We are not considering two different objects.

          If we were to distinguish between one object that was a hero and another object that was a coward, then we would not be primarily distinguishing the two by their particular attributes (in this case, cowardice and heroism) but rather, by their very material! Object A (which has heroic attributes) is made of completely different material than Object B (which has cowardly attributes.)

          So, by nature of the case, it is impossible NOT to distinguish between the objects of human experience based on said object’s ontological nature (or their physical make-up. In the case of humans: their DNA and genetics.)

          If Mr. Marinov claims that Leo I only distinguished between the Huns and Romans based on a set of non-physical characteristics, then one wonders how he could distinguish between them at all. No one who knew Superman’s secret continued trying to talk to him directly as two different people. They realized he was the same being, with different characteristics. The Huns and the Romans, on the other hand, are not simply the same entity with differing non-physical characteristics, but are completely different entities with completely different physical as well as non-physical characteristics.

          Leo I discriminated between the Huns and Romans just as he would discriminate between himself and another person. (Leo I knows that he is not Mr. Marinov!) It is necessary to recognize the particular matter that makes one person different from another, or one object different from another object, so that human experience is intelligible in the first place!

          If the so-called pagan “familists” really are foolish, then it is God who uses these fools to shame the wise, since only the pagan “familists” espouse the idea of discrimination as legitimate. Others, like Mr. Marinov, seek to deny it and end up in absurdity.

          Of course, I could be wrong…I am just a stupid Celt.

        • Scarborough Fayre says:

          Marinov clearly has absolutely no concept of what actual historical pagans thought about race and national citizenship. Up until the 1960s, when America’s vestiges of Christian culture slipped away, Europeans were favored in immigration. George Washington’s own naturalization policy for American citizenship was limited to “free white persons of good moral character.” Marinov’s position is that naturalized citizenship shouldn’t have anything to do with race, and there is a good historical antecedent to this position. It just isn’t found in any Christian society, it IS found in the pagan Roman Empire! Here’s Greek historian Aelius Aristides on Roman citizenship:

          Most noteworthy and most praiseworthy of all is the grandeur of your conception of citizenship. There is nothing on earth like it. You have divided all of the people of the empire—and when I say that, I mean the whole world—into two classes; and all the more cultured, virtuous, and able ones everywhere you have made into citizens and nationals of Rome . . .Neither the sea nor any distance on land shuts a man out from citizenship. Asia and Europe are in this respect not separate. Everything lies open to everybody; and no one fit for office or responsibility is considered an alien. Rome has never said “No more room!”
          No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common “world democracy” under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director …. You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans, … and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than the share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]!


          In the year 212 AD, emperor Caracalla finally declared all freemen of the empire from Britain to Arabia as Roman citizens. Called the Constitutio Antoniniana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana

          So if Marinov wants to talk about history and paganism, he’ll have to deal with actual historical facts. Unfortunately for the intellectually honest, Marinov doesn’t allow the facts to get in the way of a good story!

  9. Regenerated4Life says:

    Mr. Marinov fails to reveal that which we ought to fight for. Are we fighting then for an idea? Or should we rather be fighting for our own people? To fight for a principle that is not rightly applied is to forget for whom the principle was established. To fight for freedom as an idea for all is to forget for whom freedom is to be established. Whom are we fighting and for what? If we do not have our own people in mind, what good is our Christian label?

    Mr. Marinov will speak of Leo I as having fought for the freedom of his people, Christian and pagan alike, but will strive against any who resemble Leo I’s actions in seeking to protect the freedom of their people, Christian and pagan alike. This is the failure to apply the principle rightly.

    • Joe Mudd says:

      I think you might try reading the article. I believe his point is that Life Liberty and Property being protected is a Biblical standard.

      • Regenerated4Life says:

        The ‘Life’ of whom, the ‘Liberty’ of whom and the ‘Property’ of whom are you referring? You are referring to an ideology without proper application as I suggested Mr. Marinov was pursuing. You, like him, fail to recognize the ‘whom’ in your ideology.

  10. Larry McAdoo says:

    It was the Clergy who stood at the Sacred Desks of the colonial churches of this nation who challenged the foreign rule, taxation and the supression of freedom of speech. I fear that today’s clergy in this land are no longer schooled in the defense of the sanctity of human life. Where are the champions of the Whole Counsel of God who rebuke the death of the unborn and the elderly in the guise of medical reform (just another euphemism for budget savings which is nothing less than playing god with human life). Where are the voices who challenge the sweeping hordes of invasive governmental regulations that remove traces of Christianity at the slightest whimper from one person who is offended by Jesus and/or His followers? Even Christian products are produced in lands where workers are disposable. We sell the latest Study Bibles but as the readers miss the part about compassionate ministry which not only gives a cup of cold water, food, clothing and medical aid but also spoke out against the pagan voices who failed to shut down Christ’s church. Jesus never left people’s lives unchanged, neither must we!

  11. Lea Davidson says:

    Mr. Marinov’s insights here are quite good, however, his refusal to see that there is a need today to resist “Pedro the Hispanic,” or “Hyman the Khazar” just as Pope Leo I had to resist Atilla the Hun leaves his words hypocritical.

    It is hard to understand why we would salute Pope Leo’s action with the Hun’s but then turn around and despise those who insist those same types of actions need to be taken up against “The Khazars” or “The Hispanic.” True … not all Hispanics and Khazars are bad people but I’m fairly sure that Pope Leo could have found, in his lifetime, some fine Huns to dine with and with which even to worship together. And yet the Huns then, like certain people groups today, were, generically speaking, a real problem. The Apostle Paul found this same kind of problem with Cretans.

  12. Maryanne says:

    I agree with all that was said. But there is something missing. We cannot just expect our clergy to speak up. It is the duty of every Christian to speak, preach, and live the truths of our faith. We must pray for our clergy and ask God to give them strength and courage. And we must support them. But we must also act. We must speak truth. We must live truth. As Christians, each of us have this duty.

  13. Shotgun says:

    I agree with Mr. Marinov whole-heartedly and appreciate the tone and thrust of this article.

    If only we had a Leo I to stand at our southern border and keep the barbarians from robbing us blind…if only our modern-day Leo I would cast out the barbarians who own the banking and media organizations here in America…if only Leo I would ensure that my family and our posterity will carry on in the land in peace and prosperity!!

    If only Christian ministers would pick up this line of argument, see it for what it is and run with it…the world would be so much better.

    Unfortunately, as Mr. Marinov describes, we have heresy and disgusting platitutudes taught to us by online blog articles and from the pulpit — telling us that we should stand aside and let the barbarians plunder not only our wealth but our dignity as well. In fact, “there are no barbarians” say the vast majority of modern preachers and commentators!

    They would have Leo I calmly approach the invading hoards and welcome them in with open arms, because…really, the only difference between the Romans and the invading hoards are socially constructed and accidental.

    I’m so glad Mr. Marinov realizes the error in all that egalitarian modernism and, along with Leo I seeks to set the world back to a form of sanity.

Back to Top ↑