[The latest development, God in relation to a sovereign, points to another criteria that defines “religion” (in addition to “having the structure of a relation between thinkgroup3 and thinkdivine3 along the moral religious axis of the intersecting nested forms”): All religions relate to sovereign power.
Religions relate to sovereign power as a nested form:
normal context3(actuality or situation2(potential or possibility1).
Let me start with the sovereign. The sovereign claims the exclusive use of “power”, that is, “violence”. “Violence” belongs to the realm of actuality2.
What about religion? The nested form predicts two types of religion, suprasovereign3 and infrasovereign1. That is:
religionsuprasovereign3( sovereign2( religioninfrasovereign1)
Suprasovereign religions put the exercise of sovereign power into context. In a sense, any particular sovereign is either justified or not justified by the Other: thinkdivine. This stance matches the ancient prophets of Israel.
“Religionsuprasovereign3” brings “sovereign2” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in religionsinfrasovereign1“.
Through “religionsuprasovereign3“,”sovereign2” emerges from “the possibilities inherent in religionsinfrasovereign1“.
Infrasovereign religions are situated through the exercise and control of sovereign power. In a sense, any particular “sovereign2” is always being either subverted or supported by “infrasovereign Others: thinkgroups”.
Even more, some infrasovereign religions seeks to attain sovereign power in order to establish its “object” as “law”. This stance matches the Sadducees at the time of Christ.]