Harvard allows Satanic black mass

a reply to: Gryphon66

In Yer FACE, heathen scum!

You read my mind! I would have said it but I don't like to gloat Plus I figured it might get my post removed

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

REAL support of free speech means supporting one's right to expression even when I don't agree with it.

i'm not so sure about that anymore. a person could eat tons of food in front of a starving person and watch them die of hunger and thirst without breaking any "laws" or violating any rights. it is their freedom of expression, and their right to property.

i could never defend the "right" to do such a thing.

i find this ritual very disturbing. they are fools to do such a thing and i would have no part of it. some of the most disturbing war crimes were done in the name of education. i make no prediction of exact dates, but i think within a few years the world will fall into chaos because of the evil things people worship.

a reply to: imwilliam

Sure you don't. Who could ever think that from your post??? Pfft. Gloating. REE-diculous.

Glad to see you're on the side of the Diocese ... that tells me a lot.

The evil things that people worship. *nods*

Like money, power, dishonesty and abuse.

Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely.

After hearing about this, and giving it some thought, the following can be said.

If this was a private institution, which received no federal money, no state money, then it could set policy to say yes or no on anything that went on its campus.

However, this is not the case, while it is a semiprivate institution, that does receives money from the state and federal government. And under the laws of the USA, and the regulations that govern the country, if it allows for one religious activity by one group on its grounds, it is therefore obligated to provide for all those who desire to have such. That means a Satanist group can have a black mass on school grounds, as long as they allow for say a Catholic mass to happen. It can not pick and choose, if it does so, then the institution can lose funding.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You seem to have overlooked from your own source:

library.harvard.edu...

. . . in knowledge and godliness: . . .

from:

en.wikipedia.org...

Year founded
Institution Founded Founding affiliation
Harvard University[26] 1636 as New College Calvinist (Congregationalist Puritans)
Yale University 1701 as Collegiate School Calvinist (Congregationalist)
University of Pennsylvania 1740 as Unnamed Charity School [27] Nonsectarian,[28] founded by Church of England/Methodists members[29][30]
Princeton University 1746 as College of New Jersey Nonsectarian, founded by Calvinist Presbyterians[31]
Columbia University 1754 as King's College Church of England
Brown University 1764 as the College in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Baptist, founding charter promises "no religious tests" and "full liberty of conscience"[32]
Dartmouth College 1769 Calvinist (Congregationalist)
Cornell University 1865 Nonsectarian

Only Cornell was nonsectarian

= = =

From:

www.forerunner.com...

How Christians Started the Ivy League

By Editorial Staff
Published April 6, 2008

Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth – all owe their origins to the gospel.

Probably no segment of American society has turned out a greater number of illustrious graduates than New England’s Ivy League. Labels like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, still carry their own mystique and a certain aura of elitism and prestige.

Yet perhaps it would surprise most to learn that almost every Ivy League school was established primarily to train ministers of the gospel – and to evangelize the Atlantic seaboard.

Harvard, 1638

It only took eighteen years from the time the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock until the Puritans, who were among the most educated people of their day, founded the first and perhaps most famous Ivy League school. Their story, in brief, is etched today in an entry way to Harvard Yard:

“After God had carried us safely to New England, and we had built our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, reared convenient places for God’s worship, and settled the civil government; one of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance learning, and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”

Harvard College’s first presidents and tutors insisted that there could be no true knowledge or wisdom without Jesus Christ, and but for their passionate Christian convictions, there would have been no Harvard.

Harvard’s “Rules and Precepts adopted in 1646 included the following essentials: “Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. Seeing the Lord giveth wisdom, every one shall seriously by prayer in secret seek wisdom of Him. Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day that they be ready to give an account of their proficiency therein, both in theoretical observations of languages and logic, and in practical and spiritual truths….”

According to reliable calculations, 52 percent of the 17th century Harvard graduates became ministers!

Yale, 1701

By the turn of the century Christians in the Connecticut region launched Yale as an alternative to Harvard. Many thought Harvard too far away and too expensive, and they also observed that the spiritual climate at Harvard was not what it once had been.

Princeton, 1746

This school, originally called “The College of New Jersey,” sprang up in part from the impact of the First Great Awakening. It also retained its evangelical vigor longer than any other Ivy League school. In fact, Princeton’s presidents were evangelical until at least the turn of the Twentieth Century, as also many of the faculty.

Dartmouth, 1754

A strong missionary thrust launched this new school in New Hampshire. Its royal charter, signed by King George of England, specified the school’s intent to reach the Indian tribes, and to educate and Christianize English youth as well. Eleazar Wheelock, a close friend of evangelist George Whitefield, secured the charter.

Continued at the link.

There's more evidence of similar ilk for those interested in THE TRUTH.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: imwilliam

Sure you don't. Who could ever think that from your post??? Pfft. Gloating. REE-diculous.

Glad to see you're on the side of the Diocese ... that tells me a lot.

So anti satanic rituals (or "exhibitions/performances") equals pro child molesting diocese? Why? Can't someone be against satanic activity AND a child molesting diocese? Is that allowed, or...?

maybe I just missed the post where he was cheering for the diocese you mentioned...

"in yer FACE, heathen scum!" sounds a bit like gloating. I guess since you got caught in the act now you wanna drag your "opponent" down in the muck with you so you can be portrayed as being on equal moral ground?

a reply to: BO XIAN


Thank you BO XIAN. Your vast god given knowledge and integrity is a breath of fresh air much needed in these discussions.
The atheists and satanists would have us believe that Christianity has brought us nothing but hatred and negativity and misery and oppression. Unfortunately they are fooled by the idea that the actions of those who merely call themselves Christian are an accurate representation of the teachings of Christ. This fake sort of Christianity is promoted by some powerful people to give it a bad image so the gullible will believe that "Christianity = Bad".

I also agree with the person who said they cannot support the right to gorge oneself with loads of food while watching a person die of starvation. That's a very interesting take on property rights and rights of expression.

Thank you both for sharing with us some of the wisdom god has blessed you with

a reply to: BO XIAN

Umm hmm. Did you find the part where it says "Bible College" yet?

Don't rush, we've got time.

Or if you want to back the goalposts off, just say so.

a reply to: 3n19m470

The Diocese ARCHdiocese of Boston is well-known for cover-ups of child-molesting priests.

From the posted articles, the Archbishop, speaking for the same Diocese ARCHdiocese, was calling for the cancellation of the performance. When the performance was cancelled, imwilliam was happy that "the good guys" won, and, as imwilliam acknowledges in a later post, was quite happy with the sentiment of "in yer face ... "

Are you speaking for imwilliam? Are you psychic? Are you posting on two accounts? If these answers are no, then you're talking through your hat. Perhaps you'd be better served to let imwilliam respond rather than chiming in? Because it seems that irony and sarcasm have totally escaped your awareness.

Further, rather than waggling your finger at me like a Sunday School marm, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the actual issues here? Or did you just want to offer member critiques?

And frankly, I don't know who you are, but you have nothing to say about "moral ground" in regard to me.

Don't get any of that muck on you now.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Thanks for your kind words.

1. As The Book declares, none are righteous, no, not one. God alone is good.

2. The idea that Harvard's founders would have smiled on such a 'performance' or thought it remotely fitting or worthwhile or even lawful . . . is a hideous affront to the truth and the true history of the place.

3. The carefully oligarchy cultivated hostility to Christianity and Christians is certainly aided by the phoney, the greedy, the proud and the outrageously sinful while pretending to be saintly. Jesus' earthly dusty pathed days had plenty of Pharisees, too.

4. There are also many horrific Pharisees among the priests, high priests and bishops in the Religion of Scientism . . . of which Harvard seems to be largely plagued with now for many decades. They have no moral grounds whatsoever from which to point fingers even at so called "Christians" who behave in shallow, disingenuous and hypocritical ways.

5. God knows His own. His own always earnestly endeavor to Love Him foremost; their neighbors as themselves . . . and to do unto others as they'd prefer done unto them.

God's best to you and those you love.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

Year founded
Institution Founded Founding affiliation
Harvard University[26] 1636 as New College Calvinist (Congregationalist Puritans)
Yale University 1701 as Collegiate School Calvinist (Congregationalist)
University of Pennsylvania 1740 as Unnamed Charity School [27] Nonsectarian,[28] founded by Church of England/Methodists members[29][30]
Princeton University 1746 as College of New Jersey Nonsectarian, founded by Calvinist Presbyterians[31]
Columbia University 1754 as King's College Church of England
Brown University 1764 as the College in the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Baptist, founding charter promises "no religious tests" and "full liberty of conscience"[32]
Dartmouth College 1769 Calvinist (Congregationalist)
Cornell University 1865 Nonsectarian

Only Cornell was nonsectarian

Oh, and by the way, see above, in red. I think you misread YOUR own source BO.

But ... I have not argued anywhere that the Ivies were not founded by religious groups. But, they were not founded as "Bible Colleges." I think that may have been a misnomer on your part, and I seized on it.

It really doesn't make any difference in this discussion, either way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lost the original reply due to a firefox freeze up . . .

1. I'm convinced that the authentic history of the Ivy League Universities--ALMOST ALL OF THEM--qualifies them to be labeled "Bible Colleges" regardless of their formal labels at the time.

2. They functioned as such because

(A) That was their first and foremost goal--to insure educated folks steeped in and educated in quality ways in THE BIBLE.

(B) To BE EDUCATED THEN was to be primarily, FIRST AND FOREMOST to be a student of and well versed in THE BIBLE.

(C) Reading the early history of those Universities is reading the history of . . . drum roll . . . schools focused first and foremost on The Bible and the Biblical truths and principles demanded by God of all Godly persons of good will and education.

You can twist reality like a pretzel, if you wish. It won't change the accurate history of those universities.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, I think it's an important issue vis a vis the OP.

It is worth noting how far we have fallen as a culture, a society, a people, a Nation.

The oligarchy has been masterful in taking over those Universities and twisting their focus, goals, culture toward the oligarchy's hideous values, strategies, goals, plans, tyranny.

The OP was describing merely one symptom of such.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lost the original reply due to a firefox freeze up . . .

1. I'm convinced that the authentic history of the Ivy League Universities--ALMOST ALL OF THEM--qualifies them to be labeled "Bible Colleges" regardless of their formal labels at the time.

2. They functioned as such because

(A) That was their first and foremost goal--to insure educated folks steeped in and educated in quality ways in THE BIBLE.

(B) To BE EDUCATED THEN was to be primarily, FIRST AND FOREMOST to be a student of and well versed in THE BIBLE.

(C) Reading the early history of those Universities is reading the history of . . . drum roll . . . schools focused first and foremost on The Bible and the Biblical truths and principles demanded by God of all Godly persons of good will and education.

You can twist reality like a pretzel, if you wish. It won't change the accurate history of those universities.

This really doesn't matter in regard to the topic.

You are welcome to call the Ivies whatever you wish, think of them however you wish, etc.

To reduce these institutions to "Bible Schools" to me is ludicrous. See above post.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't consider it "reducing" them to Bible Schools.

There could not have been a loftier beginning.

That's why the OP 'performance' was so horrendous.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Oh yes, aren't we all so tolerant and open to diversity here on ATS, as long is it isn't openness to Christian philosophy, that's what gets my goat, lol, @, "goat."

The ever so tolerant progressive left, except when it comes to Christianity.

Always shaming Christians into silence after all we deserve it, we like it, we love being martyrs, we love turning the other cheek, that's what I hear anyway, here on ATS.

Please Christians don't start topics about your sky fairy, if you do you are not playing fair.

If you want to explain how satanism is idiotic, fanciful. for the weak minded and only and repulsive when shoved in your face I will be right beside you cheering you on however if you are trying to claim the religion or people in it do not have the right to practice what they wish then I will not unless of course you are willing to give up those same rights because I view all religions pretty much equally.

I would tell the Satanist the exact same thing I would tell the JW if they knocked on my door Saturday mornings. There is this false image you are painting that secularists make special concessions to all religions except chritianity which is false but most of us are more annoyed by Christianity because it has a way of barging into our lives uninvited at every turn.

BTW the last thread I remember seeing where someone claimed they were communicating with demons I told them they were delusional and should seek help from a medical professional. No one claimed I was persecuting his religion their but if I said the same to someone who claimed they were getting help from angels...well...I wonder.

Seeing as how it was canceled it seems freedom doesn't apply to everyone.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, I think it's an important issue vis a vis the OP.

It is worth noting how far we have fallen as a culture, a society, a people, a Nation.

The oligarchy has been masterful in taking over those Universities and twisting their focus, goals, culture toward the oligarchy's hideous values, strategies, goals, plans, tyranny.

The OP was describing merely one symptom of such.

BO, the OP wasn't even sure of the distinction between a public and a private university!

"How far we have fallen" ... since when? The 1650s? Ah yes, bring on slavery, witch-trials, drawing and quartering, the indentured servitude of women and children, etc. Or was there some other date you had in mind?

I love your numerical friend's desire to sidestep all the "bad press" that Christianity has garnered over the centuries, in favor of the idea that there are so many good and faithful Christian folks (and there are) that outweighs the crimes of the CHurch be it Roman, Puritan or whathaveyou ...

Ah. The Oligarchy. Unless you can be more specific I'll have to pass. Just because universities advanced beyond the 18th century and accepted modern science and economic theory doesn't mean they've been countermanded by ... whatever ... the Satanic Illuminati Sith Lords of the Macadamia Nuts.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't consider it "reducing" them to Bible Schools.

There could not have been a loftier beginning.

That's why the OP 'performance' was so horrendous.

Then we merely have a difference of opinion, don't we? You say loftier; I'd say backward. Different strokes.

Perhaps this brouhaha will help the factions that are chipping away at the Separation of Church and State to wake up and understand why that barrier is so important ... that is, after all, the real point that The Satanic Temple was/is trying to make.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey pal, I can post what I like and when I like and where I like and to who ever I like.

I just didn't appreciate that you were twisting his words around cause he said "the good guys won". I don't think that particular diocese was the only group of people who were against this "performance" so therefore they are not the only ones who "won". Maybe he IS a proud supporter of that archdiocese. But that has not been made clear yet. You just wanted to group him together with child molestation just because you had an argument or don't like him or whatever... so yeah you're making your "moral ground" very clear with your dishonest tactics while debating.

But nobody is perfect. I wasn't saying you are a terrible person, just that it's rather hypocritical for you to insinuate that he loves gloating when you just got done doing it. He admitted that he thought of saying it, (honesty) but was able to show restraint (integrity) while you try to surreptitiously hide and cover up your own transgressions. (more deception)

Where did I ever claim to be psychic? I even admitted that maybe I missed a post... You seem to be playing the part of psychic here, assuming he is on the side of the diocese when as far as I have seen there is no evidence other than your satanic twisting of words.

I think it's pretty clear where I stand on the issues in the thread topic but just to appease your request I'll say it right now: I cannot support any satanic rituals, just like I cannot support any child molesters who use christianity as both a hiding place and a way to get closer to their intended victims and gain their trust. Sadly the true Christian is a rare kind of person.

I'll admit there is sooo much we do not know about the nature of God. I just happen to agree very much with Christ's message of kindness and love, and if there really is such a being as Satan or Lucifer, (are they the same?) then I love them too and I recognize that there is a job that must be done... If people are not tempted, how will even they themselves know what they are made of? Maybe Lucifer or Satan is doing a job for God Almighty. I do not presume to know these things. I just focus on Christ's teachings as best I can being the imperfect human I am.

And I have love for you as well. I was just pointing out some fallacies I noticed in your arguments for the benefit of other truth loving people and for yourself as well. Because if your sense of logic improves that will only make the world a better place.

For example, your game of semantics with the term "Bible College". After all those references to God and Jesus provided by BO XIAN, all you can do is focus on the meaning of the term "Bible College". I think most of us understood that it meant that the school had Christian, and therefore Biblical roots. Is there even such thing as a "Bible College" where all they do is study the bible? Or what would the definition be?

You have nothing to say about the verified Christian roots of Ivy League colleges and instead remain hyper focused on semantics just so you can feel like you won. That's what I saw happen. But again I'm only human so it's possible I misunderstood.

Maybe BO XIAN really WAS trying to claim that Harvard used to do nothing but study the Bible... but I know him to be more intelligent than that. If anything, he choose an imperfect term but I highly doubt that he actually believed that they started as a Bible study group or whatever your definition for a Bible College is.

Anyway, take care. I'm sorry if I was incorrect, or disrespectful. That was my fault. Anything true or "good" done by me, well that was God's doing.