[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 think^group₃ and think^divine₃ 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:

religion^{suprasovereign}₃( sovereign₂( religion^{infrasovereign}₁)

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: think^divine.  This stance matches the ancient prophets of Israel.

“Religion^{suprasovereign}₃” brings “sovereign₂” into relation with “the possibilities inherent in religions^{infrasovereign}₁“.

Through “religion^{suprasovereign}₃“,”sovereign₂” emerges from “the possibilities inherent in religions^{infrasovereign}₁“.

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: think^groups”.

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.]