Hi Kirk. A truly life-giving religion will focus primarily, I think, on promoting authentic knowledge of the true God. It will do more than performing rituals although rituals are very important in human life. Most importantly it will assist adherents to develop, cultivate and maintain a personal relationship with the true God. I emphasize the true God because there are many faulty images of God being floated around. Furthermore, such a religion will also disseminate an updated knowledge of the human person. It will also deconstruct much of the dualisms that still colour religious expressions. When these aspects are addressed it will give way to more holistic ways of speaking about vital realities. Personal and social transformations will naturally follow as you have suggested. There will also be increased harmony between the human and other creation.

The problem is that even the subject should perceive it as truly life-giving religion. In my view, this kind of religion should be predominantly non-dogmatic and very flexible, and should open many ways for an individual rather as close them under many orders and prohibitions.

A truly life giving religion focuses on bringing the individual to the point where they "let go" and so relax..This generally involves a transformation of perspective. So if one moves to a perspective in which a loving God controls everything of significance (complete "trust in the Lord"), for instance, or alternatively, if one moves to a perspective in which there is no one to suffer (Buddhism) or the one who suffers is the Godhead (Atman is Brahman) then there is no place for fear to get hold.

Hope.

The assurance of the hope that is within you, but a hope which is beyond hope, an assurance of that hope perhaps best described as a deep, knowledge of personal faith in One who is above all others. For me, that is my Lord Jesus Christ. 

The problem with hope is that it perpetuates a difference between where you are now and where you want to be. It's an energy gradient that keeps the system moving. This is what the Buddha means by "existence is suffering". Hope gives life, for sure...but not in its fullness because it is not hope that I want, but rather the thing for which I am hoping. 

Thanks to Rose, Michal, Kelvin, Michael, Christopher, and Ralph for your insights. In answer to Kelvin's question, it depends on the theory of religion one adopts. Certainly functionalist theorists of religion would say that religion is a program for self or social improvement. Essentialist theorists of religion would disagree and say that religion is contact with the depth dimension of human experience, the dimension of meaning, value, and being inaccessible to the five senses but which is existentially unavoidable.

Actually hope is the goal.  Hope itself gives life.  Not hope for something specific, but the assurance that there is more to existence than what we see or feel or hear. Romans 15:13 "May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit."  This is not hope for something specific, but rather the absolute assurance that there is something. That something does not have to be defined or understood.

Kelvin Mutter has nailed it. What do we mean by life-giving?

Now there is clear tension between these two perspectives. The first would lean towards libertarianism, the second towards legalism.

The focus of a truly life-giving religion centers on both/and rather than either/or. It is both introspective and external study. The life-giving force or experience of participation in such a religion energizes and connects the individual to his/her center (that which may be called God, Buddha, Muhammad or by any other name or names) and connects him/her to the world and other people. Thus, the focus is broad, not narrow, and would be better represented by an on-going journey or a well from which one drinks whenever one thirsts rather than reaching a destination or the water that is consumed.

I think that any religion reflects all the virtues and flaws of the people who are part of that religion. "A truly life-giving religion" is either an ideal type, or something yet to be experienced and lived in history as a general project, all specific/particular instances of human exception (transcendence/growth/etc...) notwithstanding.

To my mind a truly life-giving religion must advance pure love. We humans tend to pervert love unfortunately so I am not certain that we could develop a truly life-giving religion.

Truly life-giving? How about focussing on elimination of hunger, poverty, and pollution first. The touchy-feely existential stuff is life-enhancing not life-giving.

It should have the "dignity of life" as its primary focus. Thus, it cares about the wellbeing of the individual and their needs, as well as communal needs and wellbeing. To dismiss the existential dimension as "touchy-feely" is a simplistic/dualistic approach typical of a Western mindset that does not take into account the non-separateness of human existence. Addressing hunger as Karl suggests is important, but you cannot force-feed a depressed anorexic person to health without addressing the source of the depression. What is life-giving to one may not be the same for another.