Opinions on "God is Grey" (Brenda Marie Davies) and woke Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know as much about “God is Grey” as you do @historyfan81. I started watching her video “Girl Defined Totally Stabbed Me in the Back” but didn’t finish it … and I see that a lot of GiG videos are about telling people that “Girl Defined” is awful. And maybe it is, in which case GiG is doing a good deed by helping people to see that, but not necessarily something I’m interested in.

Then I instead watched her video:
“Joshua Harris Invented Purity Culture… Now He Regrets It”
Has anyone seen this one, and if so what did you think of it?
 
Duh, yeah. Nice of you to pull one line out of what I said in response to someone else.
 
Again, what I said was in response to someone. Yes, we have a non-Catholic forum. But we were discussing Catholics believe in reaction to the OPs post.
 
i think that she is correct on that since purity culture also ok , since the proponent of that went to far as to say kissing and having girlfriends is not ok to mainting purity

i say there both extremes GIG says that sexual sin is not a sin ie premarital sex and LGBTQ relationships (even though she denies that this is putting tradition before god ) and Joshua Harris made purity his idol and went in to an extreme to get it
 
Last edited:
yeah at least the mormons says how they got their “revelations” not the same with the progresive chirstians they just did and that is how we free the slaves
 
Last edited:
. . . . What makes her and expert on any subject pertaining to the Bible? She is trying to say that these “sins” are okay. Im not perfect and am a sinner but she is trying to lead others away from God and into sin which is not okay. God will judge her.
 
Last edited:
I would not go that far but she sincerely believes that and that came from somewhere I believe she is decieved

Her understanding comes from the original language even though I doudt that since she commits errors in the Greek
But like I mentioned she mentions that there are new Revelations that evolve chirstianity

But the bad thing about progressive chirstians is that if you call them out even I respectfull manner and say they are not following sound doctrine they will respond ( not all but some )
If you where alive back then you would have supported slavery because the Bible says that ( an analogy that we are in the wrong side of history since we say ltbtq and pre marital sex are sins )
 
Last edited:
Peter_Jericho said:
. I started watching her video “Girl Defined Totally Stabbed Me in the Back” but didn’t finish it … and I see that a lot of GiG videos are about telling people that “Girl Defined” is awful.
Click to expand...
THATS where I’ve seen that name!
Girl Defined is an Uber-conservative-evangelical channel, run by two young women who are attempting to disciple young women into Purity Culture.

They’re a favorite target for snark, especially among LGBT, atheist and non-fundamentalist-Christian You Tubers and combox devotees.

God Is Grey hates them with the hate of a thousand suns.

I would ignore both those channels if I were you.
 
yeah i would say the same thing fundamentalist are wierd

so we agree than on the spectrum fundamentalist are one extreme and GIG is close to the other extreme
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t sat all fundamentalists are weird. But GD can be a bit awkward. And a bit bossy
 
yeah but still the purity thing can lead to bad thigns down the road it usually does , but compared to other fundamentalist she is ligth
 
historyfan81 said:
Now my question is how do you react to all of this and what’s is your recommendation for other chirstians that don’t now about this movement and how do you thing we should debate this people on the matter of scripture
Click to expand...
I have had many such interactions with Christians that choose the cafeteria approach to Christianity. A book that really helped me was, By What Authority. It would be very useful to you in such discussions because all their arguments boil down to this one question. And that’s generally what I focus on in such debates. Because what they are really claiming is that they are the Pope. That their personal interpretation is infallible.
 
but in this case its more complicated beacuse she said that the new revelations are divine

sure the user does not mention when or how these new revelations came to be just that the one who sends them was the holy ghost from but its a warped sense of the same thing of mormonisim but either way thanks i would be sure to check that book
 
Last edited:
Sure, many contradictory faiths believe that. So ask “are they all mistaken and only you are right? How do you know?” etc.
 
well unlike mormonisim she says the bible is endeed holy and correct ,but with out the new revelations its outdated and the true ones that have made things worse and the responsibles for all of this is that “we have miseterpreted the text” and some sins are not actually sins at all.(ie premarital sex and lgbt)
so in sumarry
  1. claims the bible is correct merely outdated , and aside from jesus the new testament should be taken with a little doudt since paul and the others where not perfect.
  2. claims there are new revelations sent by the holy ghost to keep the religion updated and with out said revelations we would still be living with slavary and patriachy
  3. claims that the these sins are not really sins and we have only seen them as such beacuse we misterpret scripture and that these rules where man made not god.
so asking them how do you know they would most likely reply beacuse the holy spirt said so and i have studied the real meaning of the text
 
Last edited:
yeah but i gues i could ask how do you know its the holy spirt as we both know it could be lying or demonic but yes praying for them is really one thing that all of should do
 
There is not a single verse in the Bible that speaks positively about homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul uses two greek words that refer to both the active and passive partners of male homosexual sex and then says that both of those persons will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It’s not just condemning excessive homosexuality like pederasty; both partners are equally condemned. Therefore Paul is including people who are in committed same sex relationships in the category of persons who will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

It’s obvious to an impartial mind, but I fear that your friend is not impartial. I suspect that she is trying to warp the clear Biblical witness about homosexuality.
 
“She” has an actual name, Brenda Marie Davies. It would be helpful if you were to explain this in your post, including links to her webpages. We shouldn’t have to use Google to understand what you’re talking about.

A lot of what you mention is pretty mainstream among liberal Christians. For example, the idea that Paul’s comments about homosexuality are in fact a prohibition against temple prostitution is quite well established among New Testament scholars and, equally, has long been refuted by more conservative commentators. The idea that the centurion and his servant were lovers is also hardly novel. Homosexuality between an older man of high status and a younger man of lower status was not exactly unheard of in the Roman world. There is also no evidence for it in this instance. It’s just a hypothesis.

An interview with her here:


Seemingly she is also a model. She sure is pretty…

http://www.brendamariedavies.com/model.html
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top