/lit/ - Literature

>>23461235
See Matthew Levi Stevens’ ]The Magical Universe of William S. Burroughs.
From the intro:
In talking about The Magical Universe of William S. Burroughs, we are really thinking of two things.

Firstly, and probably most obvious, is the material that appears in the output of Burroughs the Writer that can be seen as describing or referring to some magical, mystical or occult idea – Invocations of Elder Gods of Abominations, descriptions of Sex-Magick rituals, references to amulets, charms, ghosts, omens and spells – all the thematic set-dressing that we all know and love, from Hammer Horror Movies to Weird Tales, from H.P. Lovecraft to Dennis Wheatley and The X-Files…

Secondly, there is the personal interest and involvement of Burroughs the Man with belief systems and practices that come from those strange ‘Other’ territories that lay outside the bounds of either conventional mainstream religion or scientific materialism – explorations of L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology, Konstanin Raudive’s Electronic Voice Phenomena, Wilhelm Reich’s Orgone Accumulator; also partaking of the Vine-of-the-Soul with Amazonian shamans, attending the Rites of Pan in the Rif Mountains outside Morocco, participating in a Sweat-Lodge with Native American Indian medicine men – and, latterly, an engagement with that most Post-Modern of Occultisms, Chaos Magick.

See also /x/

>>23086209
>You've obviously never studied the preservation of the traditional text. And those men must not have either or are just willingly ignorant since they love their sin and hate God, what buffoons
You can be a Christian without insulting others, mind-reading their motivations, or sitting in judgment on their sins (God's job, I believe, not yours). As for these 'bufoons," Price has two doctorates in the New Testament. Ehremann's qualifications could fill this whole thread.
If you accept the 'preservation of the traditional text' as a matter of faith and miracle, that's fine. All the hard evidence says otherwise, but, hey, ignore it and call scholars names. Can't refute an argument like that.