So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[The Stranger]

I recognise, and agree, with most of this, and I believe that the Stranger probably wouldn't object either. The problem is that by definition these standards are subjective, thus invalidating Kadagar's point.

you are right, i wont object to what GC said. i more or less agree.

My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

For the sake of argument I'll contend that the only difference between religion and a state in this instance is that states are more fluid and flexible in their methods and their institutions.

this is well said. specifically the last i agree with.