A quick Bible study for Christians in Indiana

For all that the Bible tells us about God, there’s very little specific information about His personal life. We do have some hints, though, that may help us home in on God’s sexuality.

  • We know that God is not asexual genderless, because the Bible is quite clear that God is male.
  • We know that God cannot be heterosexual, because that requires two genders, and the Bible is very clear that there are no female Gods.

So, what is God’s sexuality?


  1. bigwhale says

    I just wanted to point out that many Christians are against the RFRA. The protests at the statehouse included many Christians. This was not some grass roots effort to discriminate. It was special interest groups and money making legislators think they could get away with discrimination and no one would notice. Pence probably signed the law because he thought it would play well nationally, so he could run for vice-president. This is a bigger problem than Indiana.

    I’m glad this is getting national attention, and Indiana deserves attention. But if we want to help, what’s important is supporting groups and activists making a positive impact, not attacking Indiana as a whole. But when it comes down to it what really worries me is loss of jobs in Indianapolis and Indiana. I’m glad that companies are taking a stand, money talks louder than citizens these days. But when actively progressive people are worried about the future of their jobs, while still being glad their employers are threatening to leave Indiana, it sours what I take away from posts like this.

    Keep up the good work, and I just wanted to add my perspective. Thank you.

  2. says

    Especially since ‘He’ seems to have a son!
    But then consider that the first Biblical couple was one man and his transgendered clone (who don’t seem to have been married: so not only must SSM be wrong, but shouldn’t all other sorts be too?)

    • Deacon Duncan says

      I never thought about that before, but you’re absolutely right: Adam’s rib would have had an XY chromosome pair, so Eve was male before she was female. Wow.

  3. discountdeity says

    We know that God is not asexual, because the Bible is quite clear that God is male.

    I appreciate the point you’re trying to make here, but being asexual and having a gender identity are not mutually exclusive.

    • Deacon Duncan says

      How so? What would an “asexual male” be? Bear in mind that God is supposed to be eternal and uncreated, as opposed to everything else. That means His gender identity has to be defined without reference to anything outside of Himself, so He can’t be like a “male robot” that is asexual (since it’s a machine) and “male” (since it has been programmed to imitate the mannerisms of biological male organisms).

      • kagekiri says

        “Asexual” means you have no sexual attraction to anyone of any gender. It’s an alternative to homosexual, bisexual/pansexual, or heterosexual and so on.

        Given the church is his “bride” and Jesus is the “bridegroom”, and the church in most forms includes men and women, I think the Christian God is technically bisexual, and polygamous.

        But given the fact God is literally supposed to be the ultimate level of spiritual being, and we’re not, and he says he’s basically removing our free will in heaven, this “marriage” is basically like having sex with a purposefully-primitive robot (or group of robots) you built after removing their ability to consent. And that’s after you gave the robot the ultimatum that NOT being so-lobotomized by you would be punishable by eternal torture.

        Humanity is God’s self-made masturbatory aid, in the Bible’s view. We’re made for his pleasure, either to see us tortured if we disobey, or to worship him forever otherwise.

      • discountdeity says

        What would an “asexual male” be?

        A male who does not experience sexual attraction and/or has little to no interest in sexual activity.


        I gather that you were trying to draw a comparison to species that reproduce asexually and thus have no biological sex, but since God is generally portrayed very similarly to humans (made in His image, etc), describing him as “asexual” evokes (for me, at least, and I doubt I’m alone) the word as generally used in the context of humans, i.e., the sexual orientation described in the link above. Contrasting “asexual” with “heterosexual” further supports this interpretation. And, in this context, the concept of asexuality exists independently of gender identity (and is probably akin to how most Christians would attempt to answer your question).

        As I said, I appreciate the point you were going for, but you may want to be a bit more precise with your language to avoid ambiguity or confusion.

      • Deacon Duncan says

        Ok, in that sense I can see God being asexual rather than heterosexual. The main point being that heterosexuality cannot in any way be a part of God’s nature, since there is no female gender of His own kind for Him to be hetero with. Thanks for the feedback.

  4. busterggi says

    Yahweh used to be hetero but then he divorced himself from Ashurah. Technically he still is but he’s confined himself to pedophilia since.

  5. krambc says

    “And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

    So … the ‘image of god’ is male and female.

    And down the rabbit hole we go – with Thomas Aquinas:

    The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”


Leave a Reply

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