And it shall be, when you show this people all these words, and they say to you, 'Why has the LORD pronounced all this great disaster against us? Or what is our iniquity? Or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God?' then you shall say to them, 'Because your fathers have forsaken Me,' says the LORD; 'they have walked after other gods and have served them and worshiped them, and have forsaken Me and not kept My law. And you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, each one follows the dictates of his own evil heart, so that no one listens to Me.
Jeremiah 16:10–12  (Emphasis mine)
 
So in God’s eyes, following our own inclination when it is contrary to what He has said is a worse sin than idolatry.
 
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9
 
The implied answer to Jeremiah’s question, of course, is that no–one can know their own heart is deceitful, because by definition they are being deceived by it! So it is impossible to determine what correct behaviour is by looking at ourselves, because the thing we are looking at is defective. This is right at the heart of Bible teaching and Christianity, and indeed, the following verse goes on to say:
 
I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.
Jeremiah 17:10
 
Only God can tell us what is right and what is wrong; what is correct behaviour and what is not. He made us. He knows how He designed us. He knows what is now wrong with us. Therefore it is never – never – valid to say that because my nature is so and so, therefore it must be right to follow its desires. My nature is messed up – distorted by the sin that I inherited from previous generations going all the way back to Adam – and can never be relied upon to give me a true picture of right and wrong. I have been created for God’s pleasure…
 
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Revelation 4:11 (AV)
 
…and it is my responsibility to turn to Him for the help and power I need in order to be restored into what He wants – what will give Him the most pleasure.
 
Today’s attitude seems to be,
 
“It’s my life: I can do what I like with it.”
 
No it isn’t!
 
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:20 
 
Certainly, if the theory of evolution was true, and many people believe it is, then there could be validity in that attitude. If there is no God, then there is no absolute standard for morality or anything else: anyone can do whatever they like, regardless of the effect on others, because there will be no lasting consequences. Let us eat, drink, be merry and do anything we fancy regardless of the effect on others, for tomorrow we all cease to exist! A parody of Luke, and Isaiah of course.
 
And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry." ' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?'
Luke 12:19–20
 
But instead, joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!"
Isaiah 22:13
 
However, the fact that evolution conflicts with the observable laws of science in key areas, as can be seen in The Challenge, demonstrates it is totally flawed.
 
The air you breathe, the food you eat, the body you possess, the world you walk on, everything was created by God, for His purposes. He gave you the freedom of choice certainly: but choice brings with it consequences. I can choose to put my hand in the fire. It’s my choice; but the consequence will be that my hand will be damaged. I can choose to smoke heavily; but if later in life I suffer ill health for months or years and die a very unpleasant death from lung cancer or heart disease, this is directly the result of my choice.
 
God has made the most incredible opportunity available to the human race – to be wrapped in His love for eternity – and He has every right to be angry (‘the wrath to come’) at those who choose to throw it back in His face. Only a fool would insist on hanging on to a handful of dirt when he could drop it in order to pick up a handful of gold; but this is the choice we have here and now. We can either insist on clinging to what our faulty human natures crave, or turn to God to receive from Him all we need in order to live the way He wants and therefore receive ‘pleasures for evermore’:
 
You will show me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
Psalm 16:11
 
Clearly, though, the only route to those pleasures is the ‘path of life’ that God will show us. Going on the path our nature demands leads to death:
 
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Proverbs 14:12
 
So: when it comes to homosexuality, what does God think about it? What is the correct ‘path’?
 
In the Old Testament the answer is very clear and unambiguous:
 
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13
 
The homosexual response to Old Testament scriptures is that Christians do not conform to all the commands found there and therefore it is inconsistent to use them to forbid homosexual acts. For example:
 
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19–24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle–room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6–8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10–16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in–laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed. D.
Professor Emeritus Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
 
The above parody was first posted on the Internet in May 2000, purporting to be written to Dr. Laura Schlesinger by James Kauffman, who has since denied writing it. See here. However, while it may be amusing, it is certainly not valid, for the following two reasons:
 
1. Theology. It ignores the two covenants. The old covenant (Old Testament) given to Israel has been replaced by the new covenant (New Testament).
 
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13
 
Therefore Hebrews teaches us that at the time God made the promise about the new covenant, the old started to become obsolete and was ready to vanish away. It did so when the new covenant became operative as a result of the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
 
Therefore commands given to Israel thousands of years ago do not apply to today’s Church. This one fact alone obliterates the implied criticism of inconsistency in the letter mentioned above. It was obviously written by someone with little knowledge of the Bible and no understanding about the two covenants.
 
2. Logic. It is a fact that there are some commands in the Old Testament not followed by the Church today. If this means we can ignore all the other commands of the Old Testament, then to be consistent it is now valid to lie, steal, kill, etc. Even the so–called gay church would not accept this, I think. The fact that some commandments are not observed now is not a valid reason for ignoring others. We need to turn to the new covenant (the New Testament) to see what is relevant to us today.
 
In doing this, one might think Paul’s letter to the Romans is as unambiguous as Leviticus:
 
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:26–27
 
However, the counter–claim here is that ‘the natural use of the woman’ refers to those for whom sexual activity with a woman is natural: i.e. heterosexual men. Therefore it does not apply to homosexuals, for whom ‘natural’ sexual activity is men with men, women with women. So ‘what is shameful’ would be a heterosexual person taking part in homosexual activity, or, presumably, vice versa.
 
Another interpretation of the Romans passage is that in the culture of the day, Paul did not understand what we now know as sexual orientation, so couldn't have been referring to those whose nature is for same-sex activity. A quote from Matthew Vine’s book is an example:
 
Paul’s description of same-sex behavior in this passage is indisputably negative. But he also explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment. So how should we understand Paul’s words? Do they apply to all same-sex relationships? Or only to lustful, fleeting ones?
 
Of course, the above is a distortion of the passage, which quite clearly tells us that same-sex activity is a (quote) ‘vile passion’, regardless of the relationship in which it is performed.
 
In April 2014, Matthew Vines, an American author, published ‘God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships’, which was his attempt to make the Bible support a homosexual lifestyle. I was unaware of the existence of this book when I wrote this page, but I think there is little I need to add as the points I have made adequately cover it. However, if you would like a specific critique of the book then look here. There is also a free PDF download of a 95-page book called ‘God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines’ here, being a combined effort from the following five Christian scholars, presenting the same case I have given here, but of course in a much more scholarly manner:
 
R. Albert Mohler Jr. the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary;
 
James M. Hamilton Jr. professor of biblical theology at Southern Seminary;
 
Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College;
 
Owen Strachan, assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College;
 
Heath Lambert, assistant professor of biblical counseling at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College.
 
Surely, though, the important point is what the writer, Paul, had in mind when writing it: what he was intending us to understand. There are websites on the Internet claiming the ‘gay church’ interpretation is exactly what he had in mind, delving into the Greek words in the text in order to try to prove their point. However, the fact is that Paul was a trained Pharisee, well versed in Old Testament law.
 
I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
Acts 22:3
 
…circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
Philippians 3:5
 
Even as a Christian, he still acted as an observant Jew in regard to the law:
 
Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law… Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification
Acts 21:24, 26
 
He summed up his beliefs as follows:
 
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
Acts 24:14
 
Therefore it is inconceivable he could possibly have had in his mind, while writing to the Romans, that sexual activity, expressly condemned in the law as an abomination, could be considered ‘natural’. However, in regard to other matters of the law, he and the leaders of the Church clearly taught that Gentiles had no requirement to follow them:
 
...some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment… For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
Acts 15:24, 28–29
 
It is possible, by taking a single verse of scripture in isolation from the rest of the Bible, and manipulating words, to prove almost any kind of wrong teaching. However, everything else that is mentioned in the Bible on the subject proves that Romans 1:26–27 means exactly what the plain interpretation of the text says: homosexual acts are a distortion of God’s perfect plan of sexual union between a man and a woman. The ‘natural use’ refers to the use God originally created, not what seems to be natural to a person whose nature has been messed up, which, as mentioned previously, applies to all of us.
 
Other relevant New Testament scripture include:
 
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…
1 Corinthians 6:9
 
The authorised version translates the final four words of this verse in the above translation,
 
“abusers of themselves with mankind.”
 
The Greek word is: αρσενοκοίτης; arsenokoites; ar–sen–ok–oy'–tace; From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: – abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.
(Strong’s Greek Dictionary)
 
The same word appears in 1 Timothy where it is included in a list of those living contrary to the law, which also includes fornicators and liars (therefore putting fornication, lying and homosexual acts on the same level).
 
…knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
1 Timothy 1:9–10
 
It is also the case that there is no example of homosexual activity taking place anywhere in the Bible – Old or New Testament – where it is condoned. Some may try to cite the love David and Jonathon had for each other; but this would be incorrect. The number of wives David had gives the lie to him being homosexual; and since he lived at a time when the Levitical law was most certainly in force, it is inconceivable that God would have called him ‘a man after His own heart’ if he was indulging in an activity He considered an abomination! Indeed, after David’s life was over, God said of him:
 
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought for Himself a man after His own heart…
1 Samuel 13:14 (spoken to King Saul)
 
For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David …walked in My ways to do what is right in My eyes and keep My statutes and My judgments, as did his father David… David, whom I chose because he kept My commandments and My statutes… keep My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did…
1 Kings 11:4, 33,34, 38
 
While it is true that David did disobey God’s law on occasions, he also repented of those things, accepting that what he had done was sin and asking for forgiveness: this is very different from doing something God said was wrong and claiming it was not wrong! Furthermore, as King he had the power to do whatever he wanted. If he had desired bi–sexual activity he could have got it and the fact would have been recorded in the Bible.
 
For anyone to claim that the relationship of love between Jesus and the apostle John was sexual would equally be clutching at straws. The notion that love between two males must therefore include sexual activity is ludicrous: if a man loves his son, does this mean he is going to have sex with him? Of course not!
 
The only sexual activity shown as legitimate anywhere in the Bible is that between a man and a woman in a marriage relationship. Indeed, when answering a question about divorce, Jesus spelled out exactly what God intended when he created us:
 
But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.
Mark 10:6–9
 
It could not be clearer: God’s design for humans, having created them in two different sexes, is for one from each sex to be joined together in marriage, physically united by sexual intercourse into ‘one flesh’. According to Mark, the very reason God made them male and female was so that, when they become adults, they can leave their natural family and become a new family together – one male and one female. Anything other than this has moved away from His original design and is something different from what He intended.
 
Of course, one of the main reasons for Christians not accepting clear Bible teaching on this subject is that the thin end of the wedge appeared when theistic evolution made its appearance. This had two effects:
 
1. It introduced the idea that it is valid to twist scripture into an interpretation different from, or opposite to, its plain meaning on the basis of outside influences. Regarding evolution, therefore, it is presumed to be right to interpret the six days of Exodus 20:11 as billions of years on the basis of the opinions of some scientists; and regarding homosexuality, Rom 1:27 is presumed to mean it is valid for a man to have a sexual relationship with another man on the basis of the desires of some men: both interpretations obviously being the opposite of what the writers intended.
 
2. If God created everything by means of evolution, then the way everything ended up is the way He intended it. Therefore those with homosexual desires are the way He designed them to be. However, theistic evolution is not only contrary to good science, it is contrary to basic Christian doctrine, which teaches that God’s perfect design has been marred because of sin and will only be restored to His original intention when He creates the new heavens and earth as described at the end of the book of Revelation. The claim that we are all in the image of God is incorrect: only three people have been perfectly in God’s image - Adam, Eve and Jesus. While His image can be seen in the entire human race, it is seen imperfectly because of the distortion of the sinful nature we all inherited.
 
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:31–32
 
So anything other than the Biblical union of a husband and his wife distorts the picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The Church’s union with Christ is mirrored by the husband’s union with his wife: in fact the entire passage in Ephesians 5:22–33 relates Christ and the Church to man and woman. So man and man, or woman and woman is something very different from God’s intention.
 
We should not be surprised that some people find themselves different sexually from this: after all, we all find other things in our bodies or natural inclinations that are different from God’s original intention. Indeed, when looking at the entire human race, it is possible to find distortion of the original design in every single aspect of our being – physical, mental, emotional, spiritual. Every part of the human body can be found to be faulty in someone, somewhere in the world. So why should sexuality be isolated from problems? All of these problems are the combined result of sin entering our world and Satan’s attacks on the human race.
 
For a person born blind, or deaf, or physically or mentally disabled in some way, their condition may be ‘normal’ for them, but I’m sure they would not consider it to be desirable. It is neither their fault nor sinful that they were born this way, just as it is not anyone’s fault or sinful if they were born with sexual desires different from God’s design. However, God does hold us accountable for our behaviour, and acting in any way different from the standard He has laid out for us in His word, this He does call, “Sin.”
 
The problem with promoting the idea that homosexuality is valid, normal and desirable creates an atmosphere in society that can wreak havoc on impressionable children and young people as they develop through the stages of growing up, with hormones whirling around to which they have been unaccustomed, and push them into ending up with sexual desires and orientation that would not have been the case had they not been influenced in this way.
 
The General Synod clergy who, in February 2017, voted against the bishops’ recommendation that the church’s scriptural position on sexuality ought to be maintained, should bear in mind the words of Jesus:
 
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
Mark 9:42
 
It would appear that homosexuals, who claim their sexual orientation is what God has designed for them, are demanding special treatment. For example, if a married couple’s ‘natural’ desire for sex was such that they both craved many sexual partners and were happy for each other so to indulge, would the Church of England agree it is therefore be valid for them to do so? Of course not! The Bible expressly forbids it. Such activity is declared to be sinful. So this couple must restrain their ‘natural’ desire in order to be obedient to God. What about the paedophile, whose nature is to engage in sexual activity with children? Since it is what his nature demands, is he right in indulging in it? Of course not! He must deny his natural inclination.

However, the ‘homosexual Christian’ demands that while the ‘natural desires’ of the married couple and the paedophile of the previous paragraph must be resisted, indeed to do otherwise would be sin, his own natural desire must be followed. This is inconsistent.
 
For a short time I had organ lessons from a brilliant organist. One thing he said has always stayed with me:
 
“There’s no such thing as difficult music: it is either easy or impossible.”
 
Of course, what he meant was that all music is either within a musician’s capability or beyond it. If it is within his ability, then it should be practised enough for the fingers to go ‘automatically’ where they should, when they should, in the way they should. Thus, no matter how difficult it was at the start, once mastered it becomes easy. If the music is beyond a musician’s ability, then no matter how much practice he does, he will never be able to play it, so it is impossible.
 
The Christian life is like this. The requirements of God are such that it is absolutely impossible for any human to fulfil them. However, in His great love for us He offers to us His own power and ability to do it. If we try to do it on our own it is impossible: if He is doing it for us, it is easy. For the homosexual person, the thought that this nature should be contained or resisted may be overwhelming; but it is no more difficult than for a heterosexual person who is either hooked on pornography or prostitution, or, for whatever reason, obliged to live an unmarried life. Or for the paedophile or the inveterate liar, or the selfish person, or the bully or anyone struggling with a nature that pushes them in the opposite direction to that required by God – which actually means all of us! Alone, none of us can meet God’s demands. With Him, the impossible standards can become second nature.
 
Of course, this does not mean the Christian life is always going to be comfortable or pleasant. There are many millions of Christians around the world suffering the most terrible persecution for their faith. But the power of God within us makes the impossible possible, and many who could not have withstood such terrible treatment alone have done so with the supernatural power God’s presence brings.
 
It is also the case that reaching the point where one can access God’s power to do what we cannot do ourselves is not easy:
 
“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
Matthew 7:14
 
The one thing we cannot do is to claim we are the way God made us and therefore our nature is what He intends and is valid. None of us is the way He made us: sin has distorted the perfection He created. He does not hold us morally responsible for the way we were born, because clearly this was beyond our control. He has made the way of escape for us though, and certainly holds us responsible for the choice we make whether to accept it or not.
 
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
 
There are no ‘special cases’. We are all in the same boat with natures and inclinations that run contrary to God’s will, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Now, what I think about this subject is totally unimportant. What God thinks is of supreme importance, because we all will have to stand before Him at the end of our lives and answer for what we have done. The one excuse He will not accept is,
 
“It was the way You made me.”
 
I think His reply will be along the lines of,
 
“The perfect creation I made was distorted by sin. I made a way of escape for you in the person of Jesus. Why did you choose to ignore Him by pretending that what I said is wrong behaviour was legitimate, and not come to Him for deliverance?”
 
In February 2013 the UK Prime Minister forced a bill through parliament, against the wishes of almost half of his Conservative party, but with the support of Labour and Liberal Democrat MP's, making ‘homosexual marriage’ legitimate. During the time of my generation, we have seen, bit by bit, Christian principles and values eroded by successive governments. The result has been to change British society from a largely Christian one to something that is not merely neutral, but diametrically opposed to that expressed by our Creator.
 
Emboldened by this, shortly afterwards the ‘gay lobby’ tried to put pressure on David Attenborough to portray animals exhibiting homosexual behaviour in his documentaries on wildlife. Of course, all this would achieve would be to demonstrate that when humans do the same they are acting like animals! I do not make this comment lightly. Humans are unique amongst all living things in that they have a conscience, can think abstractly and therefore are able to choose to act in accordance with their reasoning rather than their physical desires. All animals can do is to follow their instincts, and when those instincts go awry (in the same way that everything else has done in this damaged, broken world) then acting contrary to their original design is behaviour that is to be expected. Acting from one’s natural instincts regardless of any other criteria is exactly what animals do; humans have the option, indeed the responsibility, to do otherwise. When they do not do so, then, as the Bible says:
 
But these people scoff at things they do not understand. Like unthinking animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction.
Jude 1:10
 
Of course, the ‘gay lobby’ would say that because animals act in this way, it proves the behaviour is normal. This, of course, is based on the assumption that animals were our ancestors and is founded on the religious faith that God does not exist, everything created itself through evolution, and that there are no ‘absolutes’ so we choose for ourselves what is acceptable behaviour. As can be seen throughout this website, evolution is totally impossible, therefore a Creator must exist, who would therefore ensure we had the means to discover His intention for His creation. It is imperative that we follow everything He has so clearly revealed.
 
INDEX