Luke’s Gay Apocalypse: “Two Men in One Bed”

Whether or not you believe in the rapture, and whether or not you even believe the Bible, there is nevertheless something very significant for gays and lesbians that is located smack-dab-in-the-middle of one of the main passages used to support the notion of the rapture.  “Practicing” gays and lesbians are not automatically disqualified for heaven.

Two Couples in Luke’s Gospel: One Gay and One Lesbian

Luke 17:20-37 is sometimes called “Luke’s Small Apocalypse.” (1)  There are two little verses just before the climax of Luke’s Small Apocalypse which are really quite extraordinary.  Luke 17:34-35 are used in support of the doctrine of the rapture, and refer to two same-sex couples, two gays and two lesbians.

          I tell you, in that night,
          there shall be two men in one bed;
                the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
          Two women shall be grinding together;
                the one shall be taken, and the other left.
           (Luke 17:34-35, KJV)

I know that most people concerned with these issues believe that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Well, technically, he didn’t, at least not as an abstract category. But he did mention four gays and lesbians–flesh and blood, living, breathing homosexuals. Jesus illustrates a key moment in “God’s Countdown to Judgment” by using as his examples 1) two men in one bed and 2) two women grinding together 3) at night. And half of the gays and lesbians (one member from each of the couples) are acceptable to God. And from what I read, the lesbian couple is in the middle of making love. Thus, acceptability to God has nothing to do with their celibacy.

Some of you are already pulling out your Greek testaments and interlinear Bibles ready to do battle.  Some of you will quibble with my use of the King James Version. That’s fine. I understand the translation options for “two men in one bed.” And if those few words were all I had to go on, my case would be fairly weak.  That is not, however, all there is.

Proper Exegesis: Look at the Context

Look at the context. Immediately before the mention of two men in one bed is a lengthy discussion of the destruction of Sodom. Now I don’t believe the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. But there are many today who believe that it was, and I think most of the Jewish believers in Luke’s audience may have believed it as well.

Jesus knew that by recounting key details of Sodom’s destruction, his audience would have man-on-man sex on its mind.  Jesus intended for us to understand that the “two men in one bed” were gay. It is no accident that for more than a hundred years every minister preaching on the rapture from Luke 17 has had to disavow the sexual content of verse 34.

“Just because two men are sleeping in the same bed doesn’t mean something bad is going on. I used to sleep with my brothers when I was young, and we weren’t gay. Also, it was common for travelers in ancient Israel, as well as for poor laborers, to share the same bed.”

Why has that disavowal of the sexual content in Luke 17:34 been necessary for the tens of thousands of sermons preached on the rapture? Very simple. Jesus deliberately mentioned Sodom details like Lot and his wife so that his audience would realize that the two men in one bed were gay.

Proper Exegesis: Studying Old Testament Antecedents to Understand the New Testament

If you are familiar with the rules of proper Bible exegesis (interpretation), you  know that one key practice for interpreting a passage in the Greek scriptures is to look for its antecedents in the Old Testament. For example, if you wanted to explore the meaning of “the Son of Man” in Matthew, you would study the occurrences of “the Son of Man” in the Old Testament. (2) You may be able to tell where I’m headed with this.

I’ve only found two Old Testament references to two men laying together.

Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lie with a man, as he lieth 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)

By clearly alluding to the Levitical prohibitions against male homosexuality, followed immediately with his declaration that “one shall be taken, and the other left,” Jesus declared his own acceptance of gays and lesbians, and that gays and lesbians are not automatically rejected by God.

Before rushing to deny the sexual content of Jesus’ remarks, it seems more responsible to follow some of the proper procedures for doing exegesis. Proper exegesis includes, among other things, 1) looking at the passage in context and 2) looking at Old Testament antecedents.

When I return to Luke’s Small Apocalypse I will discuss the surprising evidence I uncovered regarding the two women “grinding together.”

________________________________________

1) Matera, Frank J. New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. WJKP, 2007. p 92.

2) Matthew 8:20, cp. Psalm 144:3; Isaiah 51:12; Jeremiah 50:40; Daniel 7:17.

[To read the entire series on "Luke's Gay Apocalypse" and the gays and lesbians in Luke, click here.]

About these ads

About Ron Goetz

Lay leader, intellectual, struggler, disciple, writer, activist. Husband, father, grandpa, friend, son.
This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Luke 17:34-35, Rapture, Two Men in One Bed and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Luke’s Gay Apocalypse: “Two Men in One Bed”

  1. Daniel Crocker says:

    Ok, well put your observation of the men in bed together. It’s quite possible that the passage refers to a homosexual couple. But the women grinding as a sexual reference? That is about women grinding grain together, not their genitalia. C’mon that’s reaching a bit, don’t you think?

    And, I’m gay and have no problem with my sexuality or that of any other, for that matter.

    Daniel Crocker

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Daniel, you’ll be surprised. I knew that I needed to have confirmation that “grind” was used in the time of Christ. I found that confirmation in a story by Plutarch that was written at the same time Luke was writing his gospel. See “Two Women Grinding Together,” pt. 2.

      • Michael Swaney says:

        Grinding grain was a common women’s duty as it still is today in many third world countries. As for the men, it can be interpreted as two men, but is probably more clear as two people. In many tribes, men sleep under the same roof, and often shared beds due to economics. If they were to have intercourse, they would need a place to go do it, and not sleep all night long together, because in many tribes considered it is punishable by death to lay (have sex with) with another man. In many texts, it says “a man was found with another man” when describing sex, not sleeping together. Reading the whole verse, and the rest of the chapter, I get a sense he is talking about two people doing the same activity and one being taken, and also that it will come at a time when it’s least expected. Not that it will come during a time of intercourse between men or women.

      • Ron Goetz says:

        Michael, almost all of your remarks have been coverd in my posts and in the subsequent comments, but I’ll reply again.

        First, the Greek word for “mill” (muloni) does not appear in Luke 17:35. Muloni does appear in the Matthew parallel, but it is not here. Thus, the semantic range is expanded to include the sexual use of the word “grind.”

        Second, I have acknowledged many times that the duo in 17: 34 can be translated as “two” or as “two men.” Both are accurate. Luke, however, often has paired male/female elements in his gospel, for example the man who loses a sheep and the woman who loses a coin.

        Additionally, the poetic parallelism of placing two men side by side with two women is more expected. The parallelism of “two men in one bed” and “two women grinding together” is similar to the carefully parallel structure of “the days of Noah” and “the days of Lot.”

        Third, the context supports a sexual understanding of the two pairs. First, verse 34 specifies that this action takes place “at night.” Second, a couple of verses before these we have the account of Sodom’s destruction. The Sodom account features male-on-male sex quite prominently.

        Fourth, the only Old Testament antecedants for two men laying together occurs in the Levitical prohibitions against it.

        There’s much more going on in this passage than just verses 34 and 35.

        Thanks for dropping in!

    • ShmuwAL says:

      Two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed. If either of them goes to fall, one helps the other to stand-up. Consciousness sends out two by two. These are according to the appointments of lives to be pairs of the Eight of Núwach. Various parables convey the side by side relationship of the Kuwáhnim and queens. “On that night there are two in one bed; one is taken and the other left.” The night is the 15th of the month, when there is not light of the moon. The two are from the two sides of the fulcrum of the full moon and the sun which meet together in the midst. As the instruction of the Kuwáhnim on the left—meaning to release/give/permit the flow to impart illumination embodied in Understanding, the other receives Wisdom—acquires/takes/receives. As the offerings, one rises upon the other as the oylah rises on the wood. Two are grinding flour, one receives Knowledge—takes/acquires/receives, from the other who gives from the left—releases/gives/opens the seed. These two depict the hands of the queens of Bayinah, on the left, who imparts all to the queen on the right—Chækúwmah. As the offerings, one receives their strength from the other as the oylah rises on the wood. Two are at the well, one draws out from their depths, and the other receives the refreshing drink. As the offerings, one supports another as the oylah rises on the wood. These examples of pairs are at the coming of the Offspring of Neúwn. As paired sides of one body, the fish rise from the waters via the conscious flow from one to another. As such, you are your brother’s keeper and committed to actions of support and reciprocity of Túwrahh/Torah. excerpt from Shuphetim/Judges 19, bethashem.org.

  2. Ted Hayes says:

    Search as I might, I cannot find my own copy. But if I remember correctly, Daniel Helminiak, in “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality,” makes a very strong case for the possibility that the centurion who asks Jesus to heal his “servant” at home has a lover rather than a servant. Jesus even commended the faith of the centurion when he told Jesus he didn’t even have to come to his residence, but just heal from where he was at the time. Matthew 8:5ff.

  3. Tom Harris says:

    It does seem a stretch (and I’m with Daniel on the connotation of “grinding.”) I always thought that Sodom itself wasn’t merely about homosexuality either. Still, you’ve got my attention. The centurion’s servant could be a sexual partner, but I don’t know if that can be necessarily derived from the text. If so, I find it hard to imagine it being a particularly consensual arrangement.

    • Ted Hayes says:

      “The centurion’s servant could be a sexual partner, but I don’t know if that can be necessarily derived from the text.” Probably not in English, but when Helminiak delves into the Greek, he makes a strong case.

      • Tom Harris says:

        Didn’t say it was impossible. Though looking at the Greek (thanks for pointing that out) the word used could also imply a child servant (pais, paidos) which as I said isn’t exactly the modern ideal for sexual relationships. It’d be an interesting relationship to exegete, but I’m not sure I’d want to make too much of an analogy here to modern sexual relationships.

    • “the word used could also imply a child servant (pais, paidos) which as I said isn’t exactly the modern ideal for sexual relationships.”

      From the following wikipedia excerpt, it would appear that “pais” and “erômenos” or “beloved” (plural eromenoi) are interchangeable. “The word erômenos, or “beloved” (plural eromenoi), is the masculine form of the present passive participle from ero, viewed by Dover as the passive or subordinate partner. An erômenos can also be called pais, “child.”” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos#Terminology)

  4. Marie says:

    The sin in the Leviticus is not homosexuality… it is the sin of a man wasting his “seed”.Life was regarded as sacred , and if men were to lie together the seed would not be for procreation. Hence the other laws prohibiting men from having relations with their wives during their menses.., the seed would be wasted. (Among the reasons women are not mentioned, no seed.)
    to equate the grinding corn reference to lesbians is pure error in exegesis. Yet since the Bible can be interpreted, I cant disagree with what you interpret per se, anyone can say what they feel the Bible says , yet it is not exegetically sound.There is no evidence.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Regarding the grinding “corn” reference. Several words are inserted into Luke 17:35 to “clarify” grinding, including corn and meal, but most often “mill.” The word mill does not occur here in Luke, but it does appear in the parallel account in Matthew. But these small differences between the synoptic gospels indicate differences in theological emphasis.

      Naturally, I disagree with your assertion that my exegesis is “pure error in exegesis.”

      • rjwalker says:

        As an aside: >>But these small differences between the synoptic gospels indicate differences in theological emphasis.

        I think they indicate _large_ differences in how the 3 writers viewed Jesus and how they came to understand his divinity. .
        Compare the “homecoming” stories, first in the first writetn, Mark, in 6:4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He _could not_ do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.” [Emphasis added]

        With Matthew 13: 58 And he _did not do_ many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” [Emphasis added]

        One can almost hear Matthew reading Mark and saying, “Whow!. Jesus is the son of God and is divine himself, whadda ya mean, there’s something he couldn’t do?”

      • Ron Goetz says:

        Yup.

        What people frequently forget is that Paul’s epistles were written before the gospels. People have seen Pauline influence in the gospels, which is odd when you think about it.

        When you read where Jesus says, “You have heard it said…but I say unto you,” you are actually hearing the Biblical version of “The Great Conversation,” a discussion of the great themes of scripture.

        This is why we need to resist the impulse to “harmonize” scriptures where tension exists.

  5. rjwalker says:

    >>But there are many today who believe that [the story of Sodom] was [about homoseuality], and I think most of the Jewish believers in Luke’s audience may have believed it as well.

    Why do you think that? Jesus himself, earlier in Luke tells us (or at least suggests) that the sin of Sodom was violation of that society’s hospitality code:

    When getting ready to send his disciple out, Jesus instructs them “10 But if a town refuses to welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘We wipe even the dust of your town from our feet to show that we have abandoned you to your fate. And know this—the Kingdom of God is near!’ 12 I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day.”

  6. Though I’m with the people who think Bible Thumping Liberal has a weak argument here, I gotta admit that if Jesus was a homophobe, and especially if he was a homophobic all-knowing God Incarnate who would’ve foreseen any confusion over this issue, he would’ve said, “…there shall be two men in one bed–not in a gay way–”

    While arguing from omission is tricky, I find it very significant that Jesus doesn’t appear to have said a single word about sexuality of any kind.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Yup. If Jesus really did agree that being a non-celibate gay or lesbian got you a one-way ticket to hell, this is the moment when he would have said it.

      Of course we differ on whether it’s an argument from silence, but that’s okay. Uniformity of beliefs isn’t our goal, last time I heard!

  7. Dove says:

    I’m with Daniel here: the Bible was written far before our use of the word “grinding” referred to anything sexual. The women in this text were working together, preparing food. I’m not homophobic, I just cannot logically believe this passage refers to anything sexual.

  8. Ken Howard says:

    I am writing as a person who has studied this matter in the Hebrew and the Greek for some time, and is persuaded that the 5 or 6 passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament have nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it, and that Jesus was entirely silent on the subject.

    So while I think it is a non-issue in Scripture, I don’t think you do your case or the cause of gay and lesbian people in the church any favors to construct weak arguments from the Scripture that attempt to show Jesus speaking in favor of same-sex behavior. As I read it in the Greek, the first phrase literally says “two [duo] in the same bed” (not identifying sex). The second phrase certainly refers to women grinding but the word for grinding (aletho) comes comes from a root word which means “wheat” or “wheat flour.” To project backwards the modern connotations of “grinding” is much of an anachronism as projecting modern conceptions of homosexuality back onto the people of Jesus’ or Moses’ times.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Ken, I just blogged about the O.T. use of “grind” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This usage would have been familiar to many in Jesus’ audience, especially the Scribes. So there are no anachronisms here.

      I may not get to your other objections right away, but I am familiar with them and will try not to be too tardy with a response.

  9. Pingback: ‘Gay apocalypse’? « John Meunier

  10. Pingback: Did Jesus accept one each of gay and lesbian couples? - Gentle Wisdom

  11. Peter von Kaehne says:

    Your argument is flawed in several levels.

    1) The identification of the first couple as two men is in doubt. There is no “men”, just “two”. Others mentioned this already

    2) The reference to Sodom is overstated – Sodom is mentioned together with the days of Noah, not alone. The point Jesus makes in both examples is the suddenness of destruction, overwhelming all ordinary life, emphasising the need for alertness and rapid flight, not Sodom’s specific sin.

    3) Even if either or both are references to homosexual couples, it still would not amount to approval. Consider Calvary – two men were crucified next to Christ – one was saved, one not. Both were confirmed sinners. There is no approval whatsoever of their life in Christ saving them. It was the faith of the one which saved him.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Peter, the issues you’ve raised are valid and constructive.

      1) If taken in isolation without regard to its context, 17:34 could obviously be rendered “two men” or “two persons.” That’s the way Greek works (and many other languages as well). Scholars have observed, however, that Luke shows a preference for male/female pairings. (I will provide examples in a blog post shortly)

      2) “Alertness and rapid flight” is specifically stated in the gospel of Matthew, but not in the gospel of Luke. As you know, the gospel writers often used the same material but put it to a different theological use. The cleansing of the temple is an obvious example. The synoptic gospels place it near the end of Jesus’ ministry, while John locates it in chapter 2. They put the same episode to distinctly different uses.

      The statement, “So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” is Matthew 24:44, but is not in Luke.

      You’re right, not just Lot and Sodom are mentioned, but Noah as well. It is in this context of judgment that Jesus teaches that homosexual sex was a non-issue for him.

      3) Regarding remark #3: If my thesis is correct, then Jesus described two gay and lesbian couples, at night, and the lesbian couple is in the middle of sex. We don’t know what the gay couple is doing, the text doesn’t specify “sleeping,” “eating,” or “embracing.” Gay and lesbian sex were non-issues for Jesus. If my thesis is correct, the theme of Luke’s Gay Apocalypse is, “Non-Celibate Homosexuality is Not a Criterion for Acceptability to God.”

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Peter, I have said that if my argument depended on a single verse, verse 34, then it wouldn’t add up to anything–but it doesn’t.

      The meanings of this passage you give in your #2 are the traditional meanings assigned to it.

      Now that I have filled in the elements of my argument, you can see that I have introduced four major arguments to support my thesis: 1) two men in one bed, 2) two women grinding together (no “clarifiying” word like corn, meal, or mill is present in Luke), 3) the chief O.T. story associated with man-on-man sex, and the chief Roman symbols associated Zeus and Ganymede, who exemplify what we would call “homosexuality.”

      About your point #3 about the two couples being gays and lesbians. Note that the text does not say what the men are doing, sleeping, dining, playing dice, or making love. And the two women are in the middle of making love. My thesis has been from the outset: Non-celibate gays and lesbians are not automatically rejected by God (as some insist). Gay and lesbian sex are non-issues for God and Jesus when it comes to their acceptability or unacceptability.

      Basically, the phrases “gay Christian” and “lesbian Christian” are not oxymorons.

  12. Steve Sherman says:

    Some translations say “two men in one bed”, some say “two people were in one bed”, others say “two were in one bed”. Why ? Because the Greek doesn’t say; just that two were in one bed.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Steve, I’ve said in many places that if my case depended on a single verse, it would be incredibly weak–nothing more than mere assertion. It’s a 50-50 proposition whether it’s translated “two men in one bed” or “two in one bed.” But when you take the companion verse (“two women grinding together”), together with the detailed discussion of the Destruction of Sodom, plus other religious indicators, you will realize there’s a lot more to the argument than one isolated verse.

  13. Joseph says:

    Oh, please. In various times and places, it was COMMON for unmarried men (or women) to share a bed. Beds were in short supply. And two women “grinding” together is no doubt a reference to food preparation.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Joseph, you say beds were in short supply? That’s an odd assertion–can you back that up with any evidence whatsoever? That’s an unfounded statement with no evidence whatever.

      Do you think Sodom refers primarily to the sin of homosexuality? If in your opinion it does, then doesn’t the immediate context suggest that “two men in one bed” and “two women grinding together” could refer to gay and lesbian couples? That’s what is called “taking it in context.”

  14. Don Rappe says:

    Wouldn’t it be odd for women to grind corn at night? I would think daylight would be helpful.

  15. Dwight Osborne says:

    anyway, just so you know, this isn’t a passage about the rapture, but about the revelation. That’s the second coming of Jesus at the end of the great tribulation and the beginning of the earthly millenial kingdom.

  16. someone says:

    oh please. In Leviticus 18:22 God says that lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination. If God thought homosexuality was disgusting, why don’t we? In Leviticus 20:13, God ordered the death penalty for homosexuality. Do you really think homosexuality isn’t a sin?
    *Jesus is God and followed all the law/commandments.
    In Luke 17:26-36, the point of the passage is that the end will be quick/destroy/end them all. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. I see you try to claim that verses like Luke 24:34-35/Matthew 24:40-41 prove that Jesus spoke of homosexuality, but you are badly mistaken. Both in Luke 17:35-36 AND Matthew 24:40-41 where the KJV has two “men” in one bed, and two “women” grinding, the Greek simply has duo (two). Check the Interlinear Bible if you don’t believe me. The Greek simply implies two (people), not two “men” or two “women”. That was an imagination created by the KJV. Plus the “bed” that the “men” had “sex” in is the Greek word klines. It comes from the verb klino, meaning to rest/incline/recline. That’s right. the Greek word wasn’t strictly a “bed” as we think of it. Google the word Greek word klines/kline. It will show you pictures of “beds” that would look uncomfortable to sleep in and have sex. The Greek word klines was a reclining bed, which you also could sleep in. The paralyzed man was carried around on a “bed” (Luke 5:18/Matthew 9:2).
    some people in this comment section actually think grinding meant to have sex? Did the “women” really have sex when the text says they were grinding?
    The Greek word aletho means to grind (at a mill). What were they grinding? The Greek word aletho and the Greek word aleuron (meal/flour) come from the same root word. So does the Greek word aletho mean to have sex? Let’s see what the Greek Septuagint has to say.
    http://studybible.info/search/LXX_WH/G229 The Greek word aletho appears 4 times in the Greek Septuagint. The first appearance, Numbers 11:8, shows the people aletho (grinding) the manna (verse 9) in handmills. In Judges 16:21, Samson ground (aletho) at the mill. Was he having sex with himself? Were the people in Numbers 11:8 having sex? The two last instances (Ecclesiastes 12:3-4), just simply says aletho (grinding). From all these verses we can see that when people aletho, they are grinding at a mill, not having sex.
    Which is what Matthew 24:41 says exactly. That the two (people) were grinding at the mill. Nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

    • Ron Goetz says:

      Brother, thank you for your response. Your objections are understandable, and I have dealt with almost all of them on my blog.

      For your objections to the Luke material on gays and lesbians, please go to the “Gays and Lesbians in Luke” index here: http://biblethumpingliberal.com/gays-lesbians-in-luke/

      Look especially at these:

      Two Men in One Bed at Night

      “Two Men in One Bed” (Luke 17:34)
      “That Old, Old Problem: Two Men in One Bed

      Two Women Grinding Together at Night

      “Two Women Grinding Together” — O.T. Hebrew
      “Two Women Grinding Together” – Sumerian, Latin, and Greek
      “Two Lesbians without a Mill”

      If you’ll read these, you will find that I have answered all of your objections already.

      Let me answer your first question here: “If God thought homosexuality was disgusting, why don’t we?”

      First of all, “disgusting” is not the definition of Hebrew word toeba. Toeba is better-defined as “unknown among us,” “taboo,” or “forbidden.”

      But let’s assume for a moment that “disgusting” is an acceptable meaning (which it is not). Let me ask you this:

      “If God thought that eating pork was disgusting, why don’t we?”

      Or, “If God thought eating rabbit and shrimp was disgusting, then why don’t we?”

      Or, “If God thought eating abalone or squid was disgusting, then why don’t we?”

      The Hebrew word toeba was rendered “abomination” in the KJV over 400 years ago, and it’s meaning in English has evolved in that time, taking on connotations of loathing and disgust that are not present in the Torah.

      Brother, if you want to continue the discussion on the gays and lesbians in Luke 17, please go to the appropriate post and respond there. Thanks!

  17. Wendy says:

    I don’t think God is likely to moderate it.

  18. Me says:

    When you search the scripture to find some shred of evidence to support gay marriage. I think you are looking for a needle in a haystack (that’s not there). Jesus spoke extensively on the kind of marriage that he condones now and has condoned since Genesis. That is the marriage between a man and a woman. God is not know for making escape routs or alternates. He also does not lie or contradict himself. I think these two scriptures describe what you are trying to do Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Tim 4:3-4

    • Ron Goetz says:

      “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.”

      Give that some time to sink in. Do you really have any idea what that means? In your ministry, in your personal life, you need to learn what this means, or you risk everything turning out to be wood, hay, and stubble.

    • ShmuwAL says:

      Gays and lesbian are actually trying to mend waters of strife that have plagued humanity and causes death. There are no bisexuals in the heavens so why try to force this contention state of waters in the earth?

So what are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s