Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism
Source:
washingtonsblog
URL Source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014 ... amentalists-just-muslisms.html
Published: Aug 26, 2014
Author: washingtonsblog
Post Date: 2015-01-20 15:49:51 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 25406
Comments: 78
While the Koran Calls for Violence, The Bible Is Even Worse … Calling for Genocide Christians and Jews rightly point out that the Koran is a violent text which calls on Muslims to attack “unbelievers”. But they fail to see that the Bible is at least as violent.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-20) not displayed.
.
.
.
#21. To: hondo68 (#18)
A world wide web search comes up with... Return To Work Bonus. How much is Acorn paying you, including sock puppet accounts? A google search for "rtwB" came up with a number of links to: "Respiratory Therapists Without Borders." No, I am not connected with the medical profession in any way. If you find anyone giving out a "return to work bonus"....check to see what they are paying. If it is enough, and it would have to be a huge sum, then I may be interested.
I was not, it is that you have no importance to me....so you get to the back of the line. I have my research laid out well in advance for everything I post. You must know that....try to remember it.
Screen Name Search: rwbt There are no posts with the given search criteria. Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about. If you want me to leave, just say so and I am gone right now.
I think he knows that.
Screen Name Search: rwbt There are no posts with the given search criteria. Shoddy research is standard for you. There is one post by your sock puppet rwbt, which I responded to. When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes. If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem. It's all about freedom of choice.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Screen Name Search: rwbt There are no posts with the given search criteria. Shoddy research is standard for you. There is one post by your sock puppet rwbt, which I responded to. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=37125&Disp=2#C2 Not shoddy research....I do that to perfection. I did transpose the letters to "rtwb" when I performed a "From" and "To" search....you can charge to to me acting like greased lightning. I am one fast Devil. I have no idea why Moderator X ever got the idea I am rwtb. I am done with this....and you should be too, Moderator X.
Then said:--- "I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not." Now Pete observes: --- When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes. If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem. It's all about freedom of choice. Well said Pete. --- And I'll bet you get a very convoluted 'answer' from gatlin. If we're lucky he may use Pew again.
Now Pete observes: --- When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes. If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem. It's all about freedom of choice. Well said Pete. --- And I'll bet you get a very convoluted 'answer' from gatlin. If we're lucky he may use Pew again. Well said Pete. There, not convoluted, tpaine. If I were to have bet, then you would have lost your bet, tpaine. But then, tpaine, I will never bet with you because you no doubt would renege on that too....just like you did on making a contribution to LP.
I'm pretty sure that Goldi knew he would never ptay up.
She did.
There, not convoluted, tpaine. If I were to have bet, then you would have lost your bet, tpaine. Rats, foiled again by Mr. Obvious. I've never welshed on a bet in my life. -- You failed to meet my conditions, which was made obvious by your chump like flight from LP when you thought some of your personal info might be compromised.
Yea, sure....and you never lied in you life either. :) You know what, chump....I never have to meet you conditions.
Another click wasted on a crappy 3-sentence excerpt. If you don't like it enough to post the whole thing, then please don't post it.
She knew indeed, when I defended her position on the thread where she told the religious fanatics to shut up. Yep, that was her style, especially when she was defending poor you over whatever strange thing you were covering up, and still are.
I feel sure that MX or DA will be along shortly to stop this exchange. So, I will save them the time and trouble. I am through sparring with you, featherweight. You are no match for me and it is unfair if I continue. You take care, ya hear!
Your browser doesn't handle hyperlinks?
In my world, he who calls in the moderators, and flees the scene, is a loooser.
Right! I admit: I lost....I lost....I lost.... Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me and bothering me?
Sorry, but as long as you post articles here, you'll get my comments on them. Nope I'm not gonna shut up. I'm not stalking you, and if my comments are bothering you, feel free to be a bozo, as you were on LP.
No, it doesn't.
Good luck on that.
Good luck on that.
I am not debating your posting of the article, only your ability to shape the context of the conversation by selective posting of the main body of content, along with no explanation of why you did so. This post you seem to highlight just the juiciest part of the article, the hook, which does not contain any "facts" or "opinions" which at least support why you think the article was important. On the other post you made about "greying" Christians, you left out the main meaning of the article in favor of what many would call agitprop. Perhaps you should post the entire article next time or at least create a poster's comment on why that is the only content that matters in the article. Otherwise, your posts will remain in troll'dom with the rest of your Troll Kingdom.
Don't waste the internet ink on this article. This was done over at LP too. We know the true definition of Christian fundamentalist and it does not involve cowardly violence: FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree: 1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9). 2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27). 3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14). 4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15). 5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20). Christians at the turn of the 20th century embraced the label "fundamentalist." It separated them from the liberalism infecting the churches and theological universities in the late 19th century. Based on the above, I am a fundamentalist.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
I will add to your analysis. That being we are the created and God is the Creator. There were horrible things going on in Canaan and later around, and even later right inside Israel. Things like parents having their children walk through fire as a sacrifice to gods. Of course the children perished. The parents did this ritual sacrifice to gain favor with the gods, gain power and financial gain. Sounds familiar. There was also other horrible murders, rapes, brutal treatment of orphans and widows and yes the worst kind of sexual perversions. God judged these kings and nations. He used the sword from Israel to remove the filth from His nostrils. Are we really going to judge the Judge? Job has an answer to this question.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
That is actually an excellent question: where exactly are you on this issue? Mind you, the issue is multi-topical - religious sects, definition of fundamentalist, violence in religion, etc. I have my own reservations about fundamentalism in general, and how each major religion handles and uses the term. This site has a very simplified primer on the differences between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, and kinda strays into "religion of peace" territory when explaining away how the majority of Muslims do not wish to visit violence upon others. If one were to take in what is reported in news across the world today, they would get a much fuzzier picture of what Islamic fundamentalism is, and how easy it is to transform it into a jihad against the infidels. Any time you have a religious ideology, not matter how far from mainstream it may be, demanding that society adopt its laws and beliefs, it is a recipe for disaster when enough people subscribe to its madness. And I would not say that whole nations have called for genocide in the recent past, but we have had religious and political leaders in Muslim-dominant countries that have done just that, along with mutterings of destruction for western nations. This is in stark contrast to what Christian fundamentalism is. Yes, there are some that believe that homosexuals are deviants and that you should burn in hell if you work on Sunday, but at worst the average modern Christian fundamentalist could be considered champions of the status-quot. They would like to return to a more morals-based society, but are more concerned with proving that the Bible is 90-100% true than forcing society as a whole to a theocratic rule which could possibly include some of the cruelest punishments known to man. And the key term is "Christ"ian. Any argument that poses that Christians would want to return to the Old Testament style of living would do better talking to a fundamentalist Jew about how the Old Testament fits in to modern life. Anyone who walks under the banner of Christ would know that much of the old laws were abandoned once the teachings of Jesus spread. On the violence in the recorded texts of the Bible and the Qur'an, the Bible makes mostly historical references to specific violence related to events in a specific context. In places where violence may be implied, it is often metaphorical or talked about in an external influence, rather than a direct call to arms. The Old Testament was heavily coded with violent episodes of military campaign, while the New Testament, which is based on history after Jesus' birth, is recorded as primer in non-violent living. In contrast, there are numerous accounts of direct, open-ended calls of violence to be visited upon non-believers, foreigners, and those who turn from Islam to another religion found in the texts of the Qur'an and other historical records of Mohammad. Even the contrast of personalities and gravity toward violence is evident in the texts when referring to both Jesus and Mohammed. One was a near perfect pacifist, and the other a military leader and prophet who often decreed that Allah said it was OK to kill and loot as long as you were aggrieved. Of course, there is plenty of content out there to call all of this text a lie; who are any of us to know the past truth, rather than look into the current affairs of mankind?
Hitler was not a Christian. He embraced the ancient pagan gods of the Germanic tribes. You can see that by the rituals kept at his rallies. Plus, and most important...the real Christians stormed the beaches of Normandy to destroy the false proclaiming Nazis. The greatest trick of Satan is to create belief systems that look and feel like the real thing. But for those who have eyes that see, these systems are easily identifiable. Finally, nowhere in Biblical Christian teaching is it taught to conquer in the Name of Christ. Nowhere is it directed or hinted to establish nation states as a theocracy with using such a state to spread and force the Gospel. With Islam they are commanded to use the sword. And they do so with their Allah's blessings.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Good laydown. Jesus Christ blessed the little children. Muhammad raped young girls.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
rwtb is not me....
I think they know.
"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa
Why do you think that? I give you my word as a Retired Officer and I will place my hand on a Bible to swear that I am not rwtb....if any of this means anything to you. But I have no reason to defend myself....Moderator X (Stone) made the charge. He should prove it. He knows that he can't.
I found your post interesting and informative. I have never read the Koran or the Bible. Therefore I am not a student of either and I have no interest to become one. I posted the article because the title held my attention when I ran across a link to it while reading another article. I am a person who can make a decision, but I do so only after I have all the facts. Furthermore, I am a person who continues to look for the facts and ask questions until I get them. The unanswered question foremost in my mind about the subject brought forth in the article is: Are all these people wrong when the say the bible calls for genocide? The answer to that is: I don’t know. Up until now, I never considered whether the Bible did or did not all for genocide. Before I finish reading all information I find available, I will not be able to say whether it does or does not. The dilemma I continually face is: Who is to dictate interpretation when biblical scholars can't agree? I am not evading an answer, I am simply saying that I don’t have one yet….there is a difference. Proverbs 29:20 - Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.
There is a large measure of faith that generally dictates one's belief that a God, as merciful as both the Qur'an and the Bible lead us to believe, would not prescribe wholesale genocide. I believe that a large number of people tend to interject what they think a God would say into a belief system, whether true or not, for their own selfish reasons. Such as I believe Mohammad, or his followers, may have done; such as I believe the Christians of the Dark Ages may have done. To read the Bible in a nearly literal manner, one can come to the conclusion that the God in the Bible often called to eradicate an enemy of the children of Israel, and we must understand that in those times leaving some of the enemy could spell disaster at a later time. This same God often set goals as a test, not to wipe out an enemy, but to test the resolve of the key figure in the story. Also, we could easily suppose that the rules of war in those times often resulted in the complete annihilation of the opposite party. It can also be interpreted that every call to attack an enemy of God was provoked by either a irrecoverable behavioral pattern or the consequence of an attack on the children of Israel. Whatever the interpretations, the history of the Bible is also the history of the descendents of Islam and the Jews. Whatever we end up blaming Christianity for in the Old Testament, we must also place an equal amount of blame on the other two religious offspring of Abraham: Judaism and Islam. To not do so would be to lie to yourself and reject reality.
Yes he did. The thing that amazes me, though, is the degree to which people don't read the Bible in a literal manner. If one does, we see that before the Flood, God destroyed a world that was filled with violence. THAT, specifically, is the thing mentioned. We don't have to speculate as to what triggered God to destroy the world, Genesis tells us: violence. It disgusted God. So God drowned the world and saved the remnant, and then when the remnant got off the boat God laid down the law for mankind: do not shed man's blood, and he laid down the standard of justice: he who sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed. THAT is the standard for human violence. THAT is the law of God. Now move forward God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah by his own hand. We're told that they are very sinful. We see the angels nearly raped and speak of the sin of Sodom, but Scripture tells us (not in Genesis, but later) that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily wild violence. Yes, all those men showed up to rape the angels. The key here is not that they showed up to have sodomy with angels (although yes, that's bad), it's that they showed up to forcibly take and rape the angels. Rape isn't simply sex, it's violent domination. They threatened to do it to Lot too. I don't have the passage in front of me, but if you look up Sodom in the text, you will find one of the prophets say later that the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed were sins of violence. So now we come to Canaan. Yes, God commanded the Israelites to enter into Canaan and drive the Canaanites out, and to kill any who stood and fought. That's true, completely true. God said it was because their sins stank to him, so God was using the Israelites as the means to effect this destruction. We read all of the destruction and war, indeed genocide, and we can see that the Canaanites were to be destroyed by it, as God's will. But here's the literal thing that seems to escape everybody: this is no authorization for anybody to commit genocide. It was a specific commandment, given by God from flame and power or by an angel visibly standing there before Joshua, to do a specific thing. Note that when the Israelites didn't carry out the sentence, they were themselves afflicted by God. The Hebrews themselves had zero say in any of it. They were instruments of God, nothing more. And remember, please, that God kills EVERYBODY, not just Canaanites. He'll kill you and me too. God uses disease, earthquake, accident, and war, to harvest humans. He does it every day. The Canaanites perished by war. Their Israelite attackers were ALSO all killed by God. God killed everybody. He made the point of killing the Canaanites by Israelite war, to give the Israelites the land quickly, yes, to give them land already under cultivation and with houses, yes, and to make an example of the Canaanites to the world, yes. But what God never did was authorize any other men to make war on each other. The rule, rather, is: DO NOT SHED HUMAN BLOOD. So, when one reads the Scripture LITERALLY, what it says is that men cannot make war on other men UNLESS God physically appears and audibly speaks and sends angels and pillars of fire and explicitly commands you to do it. THEN you not only CAN commit genocide, but you MUST or God will kill YOU for the disobedience. God kills everybody, so God doing this is no moral shock (to anybody with a brain), but God doesn't authorize MEN to do it: that would be murdererd. He commanded Israelites, Circa 1500 BC, to do it, then and there. He hasn't authorized it since. God granted men the right to defend themselves, so men everywhere, including Israelites afterward, had the right to take up arms to repel and destroy invaders. Why? Because invaders come in and shed blood - and when a man sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed. So, the DEFENSIVE wars of Israel, and everybody else, are licit. But OFFENSIVE wars of empire, to conquer and rule and take the land for ones self? God commanded the Israelites to do that to the Canaanites in 1500 BC. And he commanded everybody else forever to never do such a thing, because that's going out to shed human blood. THAT is what a literal read of the Bible will get you. The very thing the Israelites did is damnable if anybody else does it, ever, and WOULD HAVE BEEN damnable for the Israelites had they not done it, and indeed, the Israelites suffered terrible disasters, from God directly, whenever they didn't do it the WAY God commanded it done. When the Israelites, for example, didn't want to destroy certain property they'd captured, but God ordered it UTTERLY destroyed, He began to inflict defeat and death on the Israelites, because they'd converted his justice into disobedience and personal gain. An analogy: the executioner in prison is there to carry out a sentence, and if he does so, the state does not consider him a criminal. But if the executioner, in carrying out the sentence, adds features to the execution to indulge his own sick mind, even though the condemned ends up dead either way, the executioner becomes a felon and is himself punished severely for turning the execution of a sentence by the authorities into his own perverse little game. I've read for years over and over about people rejecting the God of Scriptures because of the genocide of the Canaanites. That seems remote: may as well reject God, then, for human death, because he kills everybody. The fact of a God-ordered genocide in that place doesn't mean much, for God is not simply a genocide, he's a xenocide - he's killed everybody else between then and now too, and he keeps doing it. He's going to be our executioner too. There's reason to hate and fear that, but there's nothing particular worse about having an Israelite put a sword through a man's chest than about inflicting pancreatic cancer on a child. God does both. Perhaps it's because of the German genocide of the Jews, or the various genocides of native peoples: the people who committed the genocides for their own gain were indeed murderers, monstrous sinners, who face damnation. But that's because they were murderers, pure and simple. The other genocides differ from Canaan in this: God didn't command them. God commanded that the Canaanites die that way, but God commanded the Germans, and the other genocidal conquerors, NOT to murder people. They did anyway. What was right and necessary for the Israelites specifically to do to the Canaanites is pure murder for anybody else to do it. The Israelites were blessed for it, but everybody else who has ever done the same thing was damned to hell for it. God isn't capricious: He said not to kill. Do it, and you're damned. He specifically commanded the Israelites to kill, because the Canaanites were damned. This is not inconsistency. It cruel and hard. But it's a distinction without a difference when it comes to God, for God kills everybody, whether by tidal waves of Israelite troops upon Canaanites, or ocean tsunamis on Thais and tourists. Either way, God kills us all. That's HIS prerogative, per scripture, but it's NEVER ours.
So simple that a child could understand, and an adult could use to deceive the world.
Someone smarter than I can ever hope to be once noted: While I speed read, there are times when I stop and reread something again. I did that when reading the information you presented to me here. In fact, I reread it three times. Although I have good retention when speed reading, I find the slower I read, the higher my understanding soars. I liked what I read….I liked it very much. In fact, I was impressed and at age 81 and having accomplished what I have in life, I am not easily impressed. To keep this brief (something I confess to have trouble doing)….I will extract only one of the many good points you made and comment on it, I hope that meets with your approval. You said: Absolutely! To that, I would emphatically add: They use religious freedom as a dogma to turn it into a personal code and attempt to impose “their” Christian beliefs on others. Actually, they try to shove “their” religious “beliefs” down the throats of others. In doing this, they often times form an authoritarian group that seeks to impinge on the right of others. It is as though these professed Christians become tyrants, while I think the true followers of Jesus Christ will never seek to infringe on the rights of others. As Christians see the importance of having a higher authority than themselves, they should not want to impose “their” values and interpretations of what is right and wrong on others. To quote you….amirite?!? It is refreshing to finally find someone with the knowledge and attitude necessary for me to use as my “go to guy” when I have a question or need a clarification on religion. I hope that it be okay with you if I do that. You make more sense in your posts about religion than all the others here combined. That is refreshing, to say the least. In addition to that, you are courteous and not condescending. I wish I had more time to chat, but I am on my way to the dentist. Catch you later….
Comments (62 - 78) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestsearch for "rtwb" and came up with nothing.
#22. To: tpaine (#20)
#23. To: Moderator X (#17)
rwbt
#24. To: Gatlin (#23)
#25. To: Gatlin (#23)
(Edited)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#26. To: Gatlin (#0)
(Edited)
The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism
#27. To: hondo68, Moderator X, A K A Stone (#25)
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
Gatlin posted an article: -- "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism"
#29. To: sneakypete, tpaine (#28)
Gatlin posted an article: -- "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism" Then said:--- "I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not."
#30. To: Gatlin (#29)
#31. To: Palmdale (#30)
I'm pretty sure that Goldi knew he would never ptay up.
She knew what kind of a person he is.
She backhanded him good on the post where she told him to shut up.
#32. To: Gatlin (#29)
(Edited)
Well said Pete.
But then, tpaine, I will never bet with you because you no doubt would renege on that too....just like you did on making a contribution to LP.
#33. To: tpaine (#32)
I've never welshed on a bet in my life.
#34. To: Gatlin (#0)
#35. To: Gatlin (#31)
She knew what kind of a person he is.
She backhanded him good on the post where she told him to shut up.
#36. To: tpaine, Moderator X, Devil Anse (#33)
#37. To: TooConservative (#34)
Another click wasted on a crappy 3-sentence excerpt.
#38. To: Y'ALL (#36)
#39. To: tpaine (#38)
In my world, he who calls in the moderators, and flees the scene, is a loooser.
#40. To: Gatlin (#39)
Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me and bothering me?
#41. To: Palmdale (#37)
Your browser doesn't handle hyperlinks?
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me
#43. To: Palmdale (#42)
Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me.
#44. To: Gatlin (#11)
I took nothing out of context. I only posted the article.
#45. To: TheFireBert (#44)
This post you seem to highlight just the juiciest part of the article
#46. To: BobCeleste (#2)
#47. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#15)
#48. To: TheFireBert, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#3)
The God described in the Bible was always considered vengeful, but never without some reason for vengeance. To be fair, the Bible also says that God committed near total annihilation of the world just because He was sick of it at the moment...
#49. To: Gatlin, CZ82 (#6)
I banned your rtwb account. You're not allowed to have more then one account. You have been warned.
#50. To: Gatlin (#11)
(Edited)
If you want to ask me if I agree or disagree with the author, then please do so.
#51. To: hondo68, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#10)
Indeed, the Nazis, the Norwegian mass murderer and many others have committed terrorism in the name of Christianity. Adolph Hitler professed to be a Christian, and churches in Nazi Germany mainly supported the Nazis. .....
#52. To: TheFireBert (#50)
(Edited)
Of course, there is plenty of content out there to call all of this text a lie; who are any of us to know the past truth, rather than look into the current affairs of mankind?
#53. To: redleghunter, Moderator X (#49)
#54. To: Gatlin (#53)
#55. To: redleghunter (#54)
(Edited)
I think they know.
#56. To: TheFireBert (#50)
#57. To: Gatlin (#56)
The dilemma I continually face is: Who is to dictate interpretation when biblical scholars can't agree?
#58. To: Gatlin (#56)
Are all these people wrong when the say the bible calls for genocide? ... Up until now, I never considered whether the Bible did or did not all for genocide.
#59. To: TheFireBert (#58)
To read the Bible in a nearly literal manner, one can come to the conclusion that the God in the Bible often called to eradicate an enemy of the children of Israel,
#60. To: redleghunter, hondo68, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#51)
"The greatest trick of Satan is to create belief systems that look and feel like the real thing. But for those who have eyes that see, these systems are easily identifiable".
#61. To: TheFireBert (#58)
"What’s important is what you think about after you read, what you conclude, what you do with what you read,"
I believe that a large number of people tend to interject what they think a God would say into a belief system, whether true or not, for their own selfish reasons.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]