The gay Trinity

There’s an interesting passage in Eph. 5:28-32:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

Many a Christian sermon on marriage will tell you that there’s a great mystery (i.e. a great truth that can only be understood through divine revelation) behind the physical union of a man and a woman in sexual intercourse, and that mystery is that the sexual union is really only a shadow of a deeper truth about the spiritual union of God and man. The true essence of the sexual relationship is thus not its carnal aspect, but its spiritual nature.

That becomes interesting when you remember that the Trinity is an even deeper union, not just of two persons, but of three—all male.

Think about it: each member of the Godhead is male. Maleness is a sexual role, i.e. a role that exists with reference to a sexual relationship with some kind. An old argument in favor of the Trinity is that God must be a plural Godhead, because the Bible says God is love, and love demands an object. Thus, a God who is love must be a Trinity so that the Father can love the Son and the Son can love the Spirit and so on. So when we say that God is also a sexual being, that also has the same implications concerning someone else who must exist for Him to be in a sexual relationship with. And the only other persons who have also existed for always and eternity are the other members of the Trinity, who are also male. That makes God’s eternal sexual nature one that exists and is defined by a purely homosexual context.

You could argue, of course, that this doesn’t mean there’s any anal intercourse involved, but that would completely miss the point of Ephesians 5. The sacredness of sex, according to Scripture, comes from the fact that it draws on the underlying spiritual union of God and man—the physical aspects are a mere shadow of a deeper spiritual reality. And the spiritual homosexual relationship that unites the members of the Trinity is an even deeper and more intimate union, joining them not merely as one flesh, but as one God—homosexually.

There’s really only one way out of this, as far as I can see, and that’s to admit that God’s maleness is not something divinely revealed, but is merely a leftover vestige of His early days as just one god out of a whole pantheon of male and female gods. Ages ago, when people were inventing gods to explain the world around them, they invented gods who looked like themselves, and the fact that one of them was subsequently promoted to the rank of One True God didn’t change His origin or the shape He was originally imagined in. And likewise, the homosexual nature of the Trinity was similarly accidental, arising out of the conflicting goals of monotheism and Jesus worship—a meaningless fiction that we shouldn’t give too much heed to.

But if you’re not going to go that route, I’m afraid you’re pretty much stuck with a Godhead built on an eternal same-sex union. Then again maybe that’s why there’s no marriage in heaven, eh?


  1. sumdum says

    Couldn’t they also get out of it by admitting god might be female ? Or they could say god is neither male nor female. Or both. Homosexuality isn’t the only option.

    • Jer says

      Couldn’t they also get out of it by admitting god might be female ? Or they could say god is neither male nor female.

      Um no. As a fundamentalist that question and you’ll get an earful.

      Because you see if your religious belief based on the idea that the Bible is the Word Of God and not one jot nor tiddle of it means anything but what it literally says it means, then God cannot be anything other than male. There is no support in the Bible for anything other than the idea that God is male.

      And on the other hand, if you’re a raging misogynist asshole who uses his religion as a way to justify his raging misogynistic assholishness to the world, then saying “well, God is also female” is an anathema to you anyway.

      If you don’t fall into either of those two categories and are a Christian, that pretty much means you’re already open to interpreting the Bible through the lens of modern thought and you probably don’t actually have a problem with what DD says when he says There’s really only one way out of this, as far as I can see, and that’s to admit that God’s maleness is not something divinely revealed, but rather a “fact” that was made up by Men who didn’t understand that God, unlike them, could transcend gender. I think DD goes too far, in that I don’t think it requires a believer to insist that God is on the same footing as pagan deities that were “made up whole cloth” – just an admission that while God is infallible, Men are not and so whatever we learn about God from Men is, necessarily, prone to error and we need to take that into account.

      • Deacon Duncan says

        The catch there is that man is our only available source of information about God. Sure, there are those who think they perceive the hand of God in the events of the natural world, but they’re merely exercising a purely human superstition and arbitrarily assigning credit to whatever god or gods their human information sources suggest. Once we admit that even Judeo-Christian sources are unreliable, we’ve lost the assumption of infallibility needed in order to assert the superiority of non-pagan deities over pagan ones.

  2. sailor1031 says

    It’s hardly love to send your lover of to be scourged and crucified to satisfy your own sick need for adulation. I think it was just lust and the three of them are over it now, they aren’t an item anymore – that’s why they’ve been totally absent from the scene for two thousand years.

    • wholething says

      that’s why they’ve been totally absent from the scene for two thousand years.

      Have you ever got caught up in the afterglow of an orgasm and had the thought that you wished you could feel that way forever? If the Trinity had that thought, it would be permanent, explaining the two thousand year absence.

  3. Yellow Thursday says

    I was taught that God was not sexual. That only we weak humans needed sex. So much for being made in God’s own image.

    • kraut says

      The human sexuality is only a dim reflection compared to the spiritual union of the gods – trinity.
      Sexuality in this context is not carnal, but spiritual, a union that encompasses two lovers. Sexuality is only a means to achieve this union on earth, as the “higher powers” that permit a purely spiritual union as between the gods are not available to man.

      The trinity is really a homosexual affair. Actually – a Homospiritual affair to be more accurate.
      Interesting post and analysis.

  4. says

    Christian doctrine holds that God has one person (Greek: ousia) with three persons (Greek: hypostasis.) These terms have no good English translation, but the upshot is that there is a single being.

    So really, their relationship is more about masturbation than homosexuality.

  5. M Groesbeck says

    We of the Gay Illuminati would like to formally declare that, like any number of other raging heterosexual-supremacists who have given cause for curiosity, the Christian pantheon is officially straight. The GI has preemptively voted all three (or is that one?) off the island. Any contemptible actions taken by the Christian trinity and/or their followers is entirely the responsibility of the heterosexual community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *