SEED OF DESTINY (Daily Devotional
SCRIPTURE: And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,…and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:23

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: God has already programmed your life to be different.

It has been established that God has an exemption and distinction plan for His people. This implies that we, as God’s children, are not permitted to experience the calamity the rest of the world is facing.

It has been said that example is the best way to communicate principles. So, it is good to look at the scriptural example of a person that God exempted and distinguished from others in his generation. This will reveal to us what God has purposed concerning us as His people. We are looking at Noah.

God exempted and distinguished Noah and his family from the world (Genesis 6:5-9). When the world was set for destruction, the Bible says, but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 6:8).

The flood was sinking people but Noah was sailing on that same flood. Everyone sank and died but Noah and his family were lifted up and preserved. It confirms what Job 22:29 said, ‘When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up.

Everyone else may be suffering calamity and poverty, people may say that ministries do not succeed where you are or that people from your family do not marry on time, etc., but the truth is, God has already programmed your life to be different.

In Genesis 6:17-18, the Bible says, And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, …But with thee will I establish my covenant;…

No devil is devilish enough, no witch is witchy enough to cross the ‘But’ in God’s Word concerning your life; No ancestral curse or family covenant can cross the ‘But’ in the Scripture above concerning your life. It means you are exempted from the negative climate of the world.

Today, I announce that where everyone else experiences disfavour, you will be favoured.
Remember this: God has already programmed your life to be different.

ASSIGNMENT (S):
1. Endeavour to be in the Will of God per time.
2. Always believe and confess that your case is different.
3. Be committed to covenant practices like tithing, giving, etc.

FOR FURTHER UNDERSTANDING, GET THIS MESSAGE: THERE IS A LIFTING UP

PRAYER: O LORD, let Your Will prevail in my life. Shield me and all I have from the calamity that is befalling the world, Lord, in Jesus’ Name.

DAILY READING: Exodus 15:19 to 17:7, Matthew 22:1 to 33, Psalm 27:1 to 6, Proverbs 6:20 to 26

QUOTE: What you believe is a vehicle to where you arrive. Culled from 22 LAWS OF LIFE VOL. 1 by Dr Paul Enenche.

AMAZING FACT: Leonardo da Vinci could write with one hand and draw with the other at the same time.

TODAY IN HISTORY: 02/02/1653 – New Amsterdam (later renamed The City of New York) was incorporated.

From the outset of my time in the public sphere, I have been against a seemingly needless division and splintering of the concept of Contemporary Paganism as a religious grouping or term. As an example, I loathe the term “neopagan” in any of its iterations. If one looks at the history of the word and concept of “paganism” as it has been used inside academia and outside, the term simply does not make any sense. The traditional use of “pagan” has, since the fourth century, meant one who is a non-Christian. This use of the term persisted throughout Christian-dominated discourse, often with strict negative connotations. It has only been comparatively recently that there has been a push to more accurately define traditional “paganism” in the contexts of their cultures, as individual indigenous belief structures and religious enactments.
Neopagan, then, implies a “new not-Christian”. It continues to hold back the development of an identity by dragging the concept of the “Pagan self” back into a Christian-oriented paradigm. It effectively puts the whole of the movement (as it exists) back within the shadow of Christian-dominated ideology. I have found that most people who profess to be Pagans cannot properly articulate what their religious practices are and defining their “religion” without inversely comparing it to Christianity.
Ask someone to describe part of their religion and they may say “We do not believe in Original Sin”, instead of describing their theology.
Is it because they figure that framing their explanation within a Christian context helps to inform whomever they are talking to? Or is it because they do not know how to articulate their theology without doing such? I believe it is more the latter. This is obviously problematic for the creation of a healthy self-image.
So because I have detested the needless division of “Paganism”, I followed a system of treating that word as a proper noun – making a clear distinction between traditional (or “academic”) paganism and Paganism. To further drive home the fact that this religious grouping is very much a new religious movement, I have followed a handful of scholars and writers int he use of “Contemporary Paganism” as a qualifier. It makes a bit more sense than “neopagan”, despite being a bit more clunky to write.
But it’s becoming clear to me – perhaps finally – that this terminological use is insufficient due to the varying philosophies, theologies, and agendas that are often at odds within the public fora of Contemporary Paganism. Of particular note and interest is the shifting and moving definitions (and, in some cases, goalposts) of what constitutes a “religion”. This is often done in order to accommodate some of these philosophical and theological outlooks (and, I find, necessarily edge others out).  
So it is perhaps important that we define what “religion” is, and how it should be approached in the discussion of the contemporary iteration of Paganism as a new religious movement. And, above all, whether Paganism qualifies.
We shall be going back to basics, as it were.
Religion, on Wiktionary, is defined as:

“Religion” in colloquial parlance has evolved from describing a system of belief and worship to anything which one might find a zealous adherence to – sports teams, political affiliation, other ideologies.
So the dictionary definition is particularly unhelpful, if anything can be considered a “religion” if there’s enough conviction. I find that it also helps to look at the various definitions from disciplines that actually study the emergence of religion as a human institution.
The anthropological definition, in some quality, of religion is: a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to a supernatural power.
In sociology, Durkheim described religion as: “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”
A further breakdown shows a distinct difference in the function and role of religion in society.
Further, we can see various definitions in some of the descriptions of religions across other multiple disciplines (already featured on this blog but reproduced here):
“Religion is ‘a verbal and nonverbal structure of interactions with superhuman being(s).” – Hans Penner, Impasse and Resolution: A Critique on the Study of Religion.
“[Religion is] a convenient label that we use to put together all the ideas, actions, rules, and objects that have to do with the existence and properties of superhuman agents such as God.” – Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought.
“All religions follow the same structural contours. They invoke supernatural agents to deal with emotionally eruptive existential anxieties, such as loneliness, calamity, and death. They have malevolent and predatory deities, as well as many benevolent and protective ones.” – Scott Atran, “Religion’s Social and Cognitive Landscape”, in Handbook of Cultural Psychology.
It is held, with fair frequency, that the overwhelming definition of a “religion” is a series or grouping of rites, practices, and beliefs which concern themselves with both human society and the “intersection of” or “concern with” a supernatural power.
There will be disputes to any of these definitions, of course. Durkheim also said that religion can appear and change due to the needs of society and the culture in question – which necessarily means that the concept is not as static as some people would otherwise like.
But it also needs to be remembered that “religion” as a term is definitely influenced by our own cultural contexts, with a nuanced history of being informed by Christian and Romanticist concepts as to what constitutes “real” or “valid” religion. This is the case in various scholastic circles predating the mid-20th century. These definitions come in and out of vogue, as with many things in the course of human events and, despite the foundational quality to religion as a feature of society, this creates these shifting opinions as to the essential nature of religion.  
All too frequently these attempts to describe “religion” are monothetic when it is perhaps best described as a polythetic practice. That is, the act and description of religion cannot necessarily be reduced down to a single basic idea or principle, often transcending ontological or epistemological concerns.
More simply put: religion cannot be properly described according solely to a checklist of attributes.
Stanley K. Stowers has a lengthy description of what he considers the polythetic aspects of a definition of “religion”, as presented in his paper “Theorizing the Religion of Ancient Households and Families“ and published in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity.  
He defines religion on page 11 as “often the linked and combined practices (i.e., doings and saying) of particular human populations (e.g., imagined as cultures, societies, ethnicities, groups, global movements) that involve the imagined participation of gods or other normally non-observable beings in those practices and social formations, and that shade into many kinds of anthropomorphizing interpretations of the world. Religion is the unfolding activity (including thinking and believing) involving those practices that postulate participation with and make reference to gods, normally non-observable beings and anthropomorphizing interpretations of the world.”
One of the characteristic and most inherent flaws in the discussion of religion, either in the discussion within the contemporaneous expression of Paganism or other discussions of historic incidences within the wider academic community, is that any discussion treats these myriad practices as autonomous from the human condition of society and culture.
“Religion is a class of practices that involve a broader, species-wide cognitive propensity.”, Stowers describes.  
There are no clear boundaries at the margins for what is or is not “religious”, or what constitutes a “religion”. This is especially true when one speaks to the nature of folk religion, which much of Contemporary Paganism follows. These religious beliefs can splinter off and justifiably be considered within the realms of philosophy, “folk science”, psychology, mythology, etc.  
These disciplines all constitute what a religion is, which can’t be reduced down easily (if at all).
This also ties neatly into my partial discussion about how the definition of “secular” space is inherently a triumph of hegemonic monotheism and that those Western polytheists that don’t see a distinction in the spheres of secular and religious.
What is clearest is that we can see there is no working definition of “religion” that is going to satisfy everyone within the conversation. Each individual is going to have their own perceptions based on their practice, traditions, academic backgrounds, and experiences if at all applicable. Any quality of the definition of the word “religion” is going to be, at most, “not bad”. Let alone “good” or “perfect”.
If we approach religion as a polythetic experience, a spectrum of interrelated practices, beliefs, and systems which cannot necessarily be reduced down to a minimum essentialistic nature, then we have to accept that there is never going to be a perfect definition. It is the unicorn of religious studies.
Those definitions which I employ above are based on three or four disciplines of academia, all of which concern themselves with social science (and thus, empiricism).  They are not perfect, and they do not cover all facets of religious definition, but if we treat the term “supernatural” (itself problematic) not necessarily as concerning the worship of “gods” but instead concerning with greater-than-human powers, then we see the number of recognized religions which would be edged out by definition are few in number.

Even Jainism, the posterchild example in the West of a “non-theistic religion”, recognizes and engages with a variety of supernatural beings, depending on the philosophical school.

There’s also something to be said about the fetishization by the West of Eastern religions for political purposes or other agendas.

How does this discussion of the definition of religion tie in with the contemporary incidence of Paganism?  Paganism is a similarly difficult concept to articulate properly.  Its traditional monothetic definition (a “nature-based” fertility religion) has fallen out of favor for a polythetic definition (a spectrum of religious identities which are likewise “not bad” in definition).  

Contemporary Paganism consists of both “true” new religious movements (Druidism/Druidry, Wicca/British Traditional Witchcraft, etc.) and traditionalist pagan revivals or restorations (reconstructionist/revivalist polytheistic traditions like Heathenry or the Religio Romana, etc.).  On paper, they do not seem to have much in common, yet are nevertheless grouped under the term of Contemporary Paganism.

A closer examination of the traditional understanding of “pagan” (excluding the non-Christian qualifier) religions would show that they are not as dissimilar in nature as they first appear.  In his book Pagan Theology, Michael York attempts to describe some of the qualities which these traditional pre-Christian pagan practices included.  These are

There are others, of course.  This list is neither comprehensive, nor wholly indicative.  But it is a useful baseline in comparing “Pagan” religions with other world religions.  Though Michael York’s writing treats this list as a historic incidence, I find that much of Contemporary Paganism features these.  What we see here is that these religious qualities largely persist across both of the spectrums of Contemporary Paganism.  That is, they are features in some way in the “New Religions” and the “Revived Religions”.  I will attempt to describe.  

In the case of these traditions, divinity is directly experienced and intertwined with the visible and material world.  This is true of a polytheistic revivalist, a dualistic Wiccan, or a panentheistic druid or a vaguely Emersonian naturalist.  The wills of these religions do not seek to transcend the world around them and recognize that we are only a tiny part of a larger whole.  Where they differ is in their concern for the recognition of the numinous divine.  This is the nature of corpo-spirituality.  It does not matter if divinity is a staunch multiplicity, a theological duality, or a distant universality of all (or most things).  It is immanent and inherent in the world.

Amusingly, this extends towards a predisposition to classical concepts of “idolatry”, featuring the sacredness of place and thing in a way which inherently makes Christianity uncomfortable.

Paganism is generally said, and commonly argued, to be concerned with orthopraxy over orthodoxy, that there is more emphasis on the proper action instead of proper belief.  I would perhaps make the argument that it is a blend of ritualism and orthopraxis instead.  Ritual efficacy and the role of custom, in both life and ritual, in the proper enactment of religious expression is seen.  What we cannot say is that belief is unimportant to any kind of theism.  It is simply that the adjudication of orthodoxy is less of a concern.

One must understand the theory (belief) to put it into action (praxis).

At first glance, York’s inclusion of “magical practice” as a qualifier for pre-Christian pagan religions (and thus, something that Contemporary Paganism is indebted to) might appear to be out of place, particularly with some religious philosophies opposed to the idea of “magic”.  Modern concepts of “magic” are conflated with the ceremonial magic of Wicca and British Traditional Witchcraft, inherited from the esotericist orders of the late Victorian era.  It is to be remembered, however, that “magical practice” in the context of some of these traditions include various operations of sacrifice, bribery, “low magic” (cunningcraft), and other similar items.  Even prayer, with its formulaic and intentional purpose, can be argued as a magical process.

I do find the term “deity” and “gods” to be particularly loaded, and one of my concerns with York’s list of these traditional qualities are the use of these terms.  There is an unfortunate baggage which arises from the use of these words, constituting an unnecessary predisposition towards the concept of the “big gods” – that the term “god” must be a figure of renown as Jupiter or Odin.  The study of traditional pagan cultures would show that the terms “deity” and “god” can include a plethora of varying divine figures including, but necessarily limited to, deified ancestral figures, nonspecific local spirits, tutelary beings of limited scope, and those traditional divine figures of renown and ethno-cultural importance.

This baggage is paramount in some modern restorations – notably Heathenry – who view these beings through an unnecessary lens of “power” or hierarchy, limiting the fundamental understanding of the importance of the “small gods”.  The theological language of modern Paganism is still very much couched within a Christo-centric world, and care should be made in light of that. The theological understanding of these beings in antiquity was nuanced, but few were viewed as “lesser” which the modern hierarchy would like to portray.  They simply held different roles and spheres of influence.

York’s biggest distinction in the incidence of Contemporary Paganism with traditional pre-Christian paganism (classified by him as neopagan, geopagan, and recopagan, all terms which I consider problematic) is the lack of emphasis on shrine and temple culture that the latter had promulgated.  What I believe he is referencing is more the establishment of a formalized priesthood, because the concept of the sacredness of space and delineation of sacred and profane is largely unchanged across the Paganisms.  The age of York’s book is apparent, given his articulation that “contemporary neopagans” do not exhibit a devotional quality before altars.

An inherent issue in hiving off the traditional, Christo-centric definition of “pagan” from the concept of Contemporary Paganism is what exactly the term incompasses.  As we’ve seen above, the concept of Paganism as a religion largely holds true throughout the contemporary incidence of it.  But so too do many other worldwide cultures.  In this way, “paganism” as a concept is very much like the usage of “shamanism”: it unhelpfully describes a collection of attitudes and folk practices, some of which can span the globe.  

This, of course, leads to a handful of problems:

All three of these issues are problematic in their own way, although one and two are intrinsically linked together.  Calling a tradition like African Tribal/Diasporic Religion (ATR/ADR), Shinto, or Hindusim (among others) “pagan” tends to receive negative responses, because of the implication that these cultures are “outsiders” in their own cultural and social context.  It diminishes their rich history, their own traditions, and the experiences of their religious developments.  Jordan Paper’s book The Deities are Many discusses this a bit, and the (then) growing trend of the recognition of indigenous practices in their own contexts.

The third point is one that is particularly important to me, as someone who identifies as a Contemporary Pagan. The popular expression of Paganism when it became semi-”mainstream” in the 1990s often relied on appropriating concepts from other religions in order to fill gaps in practice or belief, or because it interested the practitioner, or any number of reasons. The closeness at the time between Paganism and the New Age movement encouraged a brand of eclecticism (used here not as a pejorative) and cherry picking which was ultimately harmful to many of the cultures which were being drawn from.

We see this attitude replicated again and again, and one of the most recent and extreme examples I can think of came from the recent struggle at Standing Rock and the actions of some of the “allies” there (Part 1, Part 2). While we’re not sure that these women were “Pagan”, this attitude is all too frequent. The discussion of this practice merits its own entry.

But the value in narrower definitions, as tools to generate a more thorough identity should be shown. A group with a watery and ill-defined identity will not have a firm foundation in order to thrive – as a comparison, the Unitarian Universalist membership and reenrollment have been trending downward every year since 2008.

One of the methods I employ in the definition of “Contemporary Paganism” as a distinct religious grouping is to utilize a firm cultural boundary, and I extend it to the religions which are either largely descended from (revived) or inspired by the folk religions of both the European-Mediterranean and Mesopotamian cultural basins. This positions Contemporary Paganism as a purely Western religious expression, recognizing and advocating for a distinct identity which can be erected, and reasonably encompasses the history of “the West” (Pre-Classical and Classical antiquity), while at the same time including new religious movements that are inspired by that expression.  

Of course, not everyone will agree. But I find that the definition, again, is “not bad”. And, what’s more, it’s workable.  

By studying these new religious movements and the revived traditionalist religions of Contemporary Paganism, we see that Paganism aligns with the themes and essential concepts of religion. Its emphasis on supernatural/greater-than-human interaction, the definition of a continuum of sacredness and delineation of profanity, and an inherently foundational concept of interrelated and codependent reciprocity all assist in positioning Contemporary Paganism as a religio-spiritual institution. Where these Pagan religions differ are in the emphasis placed upon these facets.

Like Stowers said in the quote previously shared, “religion” is a problematic term, with numerous pitfalls and qualities that are inextricably linked. It ultimately encompasses, not excludes, a diversity of discipline and opinion, which form the totality of its expression within a culture. Paganism, as a contemporary religious grouping, is likewise problematic and encompasses disciplines as theology, philosophy, and folk psychology, which all inform its existence. In comparing modern iterations of Pagan religiosity with traditional concepts of pre-Christian pagan religion, we see that it is a series of orthopraxic and ritualistic lineages within what amounts to a truly multi-faith milieu.

When approaching Contemporary Paganism and contrasting it to traditional concepts of “pagan religiosity”, we’re struck with the growing development that within Contemporary Paganism of two distinct interpretations. The first is to treat Paganism, as I have done here, as a religio-spiritual edifice. The second is to treat Paganism in the vein reminiscent of Loyal Rue and Ursula Goodenough and approach it, instead, as an “attitude”.

Magical thinking in various forms is a cultural universal and an important aspect of religion. Magic is prevalent in all societies, regardless of whether they have organized religion or more general systems of animism or shamanism. Religion and magic became conceptually separated with the development of western monotheism, where the distinction arose between supernatural events sanctioned by mainstream religious doctrine (“miracles“) and mere magic rooted in folk belief or occult speculation. In pre-monotheistic religious traditions, there is no fundamental distinction between religious practice and magic; tutelary deities concerned with magic are sometimes called “hermetic deities” or “spirit guides.”

Appearing from aboriginal tribes in Australia and New Zealand to rainforest tribes in South America, bush tribes in Africa and pagan tribal groups in Western Europe and Britain (as personified by Merlin, based on Welsh prophet Myrddin Wyllt), in Asia and in India( as Gods like Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma), some form of shamanism and belief in a spirit world seems to be common in the early development of human communities. According to Joseph Campbell, the ancient cave paintings in Lascaux may have been associated with “the magic of the hunt.”[1] Much of the Babylonian and Egyptian pictorial writing characters appear derived from the same sources.

Although indigenous magical traditions persist to this day, very early on some communities transitioned from nomadic to agricultural civilizations, and with this shift, the development of spiritual life mirrored that of civic life. Just as tribal elders were consolidated and transformed into monarchs and bureaucrats, so too did shamans and adepts evolve into a priestly caste.

This shift is not in naming alone. It is at this stage of development that highly codified and elaborate rituals, setting the stage for formal religions, began to emerge, such as the funeral rites of the Egyptians and the sacrifice rituals of the Babylonian, Persian, Aztec, and Maya civilizations.

It is a postulate of modern anthropology, at least since early 1930s, that there is complete continuity between magic and religion.[2][3] In the past, there have been many attempts by anthropologists to establish some fundamental distinction between magic and religion, most notably by James George Frazer and Bronisław Malinowski; they tried to demonstrate that “magical thinking” is a form of proto-science or pseudoscience rather than a form of religious practice, and that by this line of thought, early magical beliefs developed through a post-hoc fallacy — a supplication was made on the altar, and then it rained shortly afterward. Regardless of whether the supplication was the actual cause, it was credited with the change, and thus magical beliefs could grow.[citation needed]

One magician’s response to this is that magic is unconcerned with establishing causality, only repeatability: Ramsey Dukes explains in his book S.S.O.T.B.M.E. that questions such as “Are you sure it was your magic that cured her?” are irrelevant to the magician. “If it was a coincidence, it doesn’t matter just so long as he can bring about such coincidences”[4]

Early sociological interpretations of magic by Marcel Mauss and Henri Hubert emphasized the social conditions in which the phenomenon of magic develops.[5] According to them, religion is the expression of a social structure and serves to maintain the cohesion of a community (religion is therefore ‘public’) and magic is an individualistic action (and therefore ‘private’).[5]

Ralph Merrifield, the British archaeologist credited as producing the first full-length volume dedicated to a material approach to magic,[6] defined the differences between religion and magic: “‘Religion’ is used to indicate the belief in supernatural or spiritual beings; ‘magic’, the use of practices intended to bring occult forces under control and so to influence events; ‘ritual’, prescribed or customary behaviour that may be religious, if it is intended to placate or win favour of supernatural beings, magical if it is intended to operate through impersonal forces of sympathy or by controlling supernatural beings, or social if its purpose is to reinforce a social organisation or facilitate social intercourse”.[7]

In 1991 Henk Versnel argued that ‘magic’ and ‘religion’ function in different ways and that these can be broadly defined in four areas: Intention – magic is employed to achieve clear and immediate goals for an individual, whereas religion is less purpose-motivated and has its sights set on longer-term goals; Attitude – magic is manipulative as the process is in the hands of the user, “instrumental coercive manipulation”, opposed to the religious attitude of “personal and supplicative negotiation”; Action – magic is a technical exercise that often requires professional skills to fulfil an action, whereas religion is not dependent upon these factors but the will and sentiment of the gods; Social – the goals of magic run counter to the interests of a society (in that personal gain for an individual gives them an unfair advantage over peers), whereas religion has more benevolent and positive social functions.[8]

This separation of the terms ‘religion’ and ‘magic’ in a functional sense is disputed. It has been argued that abandoning the ‘term’ magic in favour of discussing “belief in spiritual beings” will help to create a more meaningful understanding of all associated ritual practices.[9] However using the word ‘magic’ alongside ‘religion’ is one method of trying to understand the supernatural world, even if some other term can eventually take its place.[8]

Closely related to magic are most forms of religious supplication, asking the divine for aid. Perhaps the most famous form is prayer, which is ordained by many religions as a spiritual duty, even apart from any effects on the outside world.[improper synthesis?]

Both magic and religion contain rituals.[7] Typically, there is a recognition that rituals do not always work; rather, it is thought to simply increase the likelihood of the desired result coming to pass[original research?]. While many rituals focus on personal communion with the divine and spiritual purification, others often seek “magical” favourable results, such as healing or good luck in battle.

Most cultures have or have had in their past some form of magical tradition that recognizes a shamanistic interconnectedness of spirit. This may have been long ago, as a folk tradition that died out with the establishment of a major world religion, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism, or it may still co-exist with that world religion.[10]

Likewise, both can be divided by the effects they produce into perception and material changes. That is, whether prayer or some type of spell is used, it can either bring about an actual change (material) or a change in the way the subject feels (perception). The same prayer, for something to be “cooler” could therefore either actually raise the temperature, or simply alter the praying subject and any other targets feeling of the temperature. This is not to say that perception changes are not “real” as it could be used in healing to numb the sensation of pain, allowing healing to take place more easily.

There is a long-standing belief in the power of “true names;” this often descends from the magical belief that knowing a being’s true name grants power over it.[11] This is often seen[by whom?] as a requirement in spiritualism; knowing the identity of a spirit greatly aids in soliciting information from it.

If names have power, then knowing the name of a god regarded as supreme in a religion should grant the greatest power of all. This belief is reflected in traditional Wicca, where the names of the Goddess and the Horned God – the two supreme deities in Wicca – are usually held as a secret to be revealed only to initiates. This belief is also reflected in ancient Judaism, which used the Tetragrammaton (YHWH, usually translated as “Lord” in small caps) to refer to God “safely” in the Tanakh. The same belief is seen in Hinduism, but with different conclusions; rather, attaining transcendence and the power of God is seen as a good thing. Thus, some Hindus chant the name of their favorite deities as often as possible, the most common being Krishna.[12]

Using the names of the god alongside magical pictures or visual literary effects, such as palindromes, are a common feature of the Roman-era Greek Magical Papyri.

Some religions[which?] believe in transferring holiness to objects and places; this is often seen in even simple things like “christening” or launching ceremonies for a new boat. Churches and certain religiously-minded individuals often consecrate the ground where a building will be constructed.[citation needed]

The practice was common during the Middle Ages, where a large market for spiritual relics existed. Fragments of the true cross and bones of saints were often brought back by Crusaders from the Holy Land, where they were sold to the peasantry as cure-alls. Most scholarly sources agree that the vast majority of these sales were fraudulent and simply a form of supplementary income for the Crusaders.[citation needed] This practice somewhat fell into disrepute during the Reformation; it became associated with idol worship. As a result, this is less seen in Protestantism than Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.[13]

One of the more controversial practices in magic and religion both, this involves a sacrifice to a supernatural being, such as a god, angel, or demon, who is asked to intervene on behalf of the person performing the sacrifice.

Sacrifice can take many forms. The most common forms of supplication and sacrifice in pagan and neopagan religious practice involves the burning of oils or incense. Other common forms of supplication may include the offering of personal objects to a deity, offering chants, and the offering of drinks and food. Less used is blood sacrifice. In early history, blood sacrifice was common; a goat or calf would be sacrificed. Often, divination would be practiced via reading the entrails (notably in Ancient Rome). Leviticus contains detailed rules for proper blood sacrifice, used in early Judaism. Blood sacrifice has been rejected by most neopagans. In hoodoo, blood ritual, or the giving of one’s own blood in ritual practices, is not entirely uncommon. Most strands of modern Judaism believe that with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, there is no place to sacrifice anymore, and thus the need is negated; (modern Samaritans disagree, and maintain the practice). In Christianity, it is believed that Jesus‘s final sacrifice renders any further sacrifices unnecessary. Some syncretic blends of Islam and native practices in places such as Indonesia feature sacrifice as an element of worship.

The most extreme form of sacrifice, and the one carrying the most negative taboo, is human sacrifice. The moloch is one famous but disputed example of the practice; the Carthaginians seemingly sacrificed young children when circumstances looked grim, hoping to regain divine favor. Some historians attribute this to one reason for their downfall.[citation needed] Other cultures preferred to sacrifice only their enemies, offering up captured prisoners in supplication; the Druids became one of the two religions banned by the Roman Empire due to their practice of (Roman) human sacrifice.[12] The book Genesis contains the famous story of the Binding of Isaac; Abraham is ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac by God, but it turns out that God was only performing a test, and a ram is sent instead. Afterwards, human sacrifice is condemned. The Quran contains strong condemnations of the Arabian pagans who would sacrifice female babies by leaving them in pots in the desert to die of exposure, saying that such practice surely leads to hell.[citation needed]

Magic and Abrahamic religions have had a somewhat checkered past. The King James Version of the Bible included the famous translation “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18),[14] and Saul is rebuked by God for seeking advice from a diviner who could contact spirits. On the other hand, seemingly magical signs are documented in the Bible: For example, both the staff of Pharaoh’s sorcerers as well as the staff of Moses and Aaron could be turned into snakes (Exodus 7:8-13). However, as Scott Noegel points out, the critical difference between the magic of Pharaoh’s magicians and the non-magic of Moses is in the means by which the staff becomes a snake. For the Pharaoh’s magicians, they employed “their secret arts” whereas Moses merely throws down his staff to turn it into a snake. To an ancient Egyptian, the startling difference would have been that Moses neither employed secret arts nor magical words. In the Torah, Noegel points out that YHWH does not need magical rituals to act.[15]

See also Numbers 21:5-9, in which Moses creates a Bronze Snake in order to heal the Israelites from snake bites. But see the Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 29a, which asserts that it was not the bronze serpent that healed the Israelites, but rather their seeing the snake and submitting themselves to God.

The words “witch” and “witchcraft” appear in some English versions of the Christian Holy Bible. One verse that is probably responsible for more deaths of suspected witches than any other passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is Exodus 22:18.[citation needed] In the King James Version, this reads: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The precise meaning of the Hebrew word kashaph, here translated as ‘witch’ and in some other modern versions, ‘sorceress’, is uncertain. In the Septuagint it was translated as pharmakeia, meaning ‘pharmacy’, and on this basis, Reginald Scot claimed in the 16th century that ‘witch’ was an incorrect translation and poisoners were intended.[16]His theory still holds some currency, but is not widely accepted, and in Daniel 2:2 kashaph is listed alongside other magic practitioners who could interpret dreams: magicians, astrologers and Chaldeans. It may be noted that the Hebrew word kashaph is in the masculine, and in modern Hebrew usage, kashaph is synonymous with a male sorcerer.

The Judeo-Christian abhorrence of witches was not peculiar to them.[relevant? ]The pagan Roman Empire and Babylonian Empire developed laws against malevolent witchcraft. The ancient Code of Hammurabi specifically called for death to witches, and also proscribed false accusations of witchcraft: