Talk:Be fruitful and multiply

message: Only in the Reformed Tradition of Christianity is this verse referred to as the "Cultural Mandate". In most other Christian traditions it's simply cited as a verse via normal citation methods (e.g. "Gen 1:28"). In Judaism, it's referred to either by its derived mitzvah (pirya v'rivya). I would argue that the article itself be renamed to simply its common English translation, i.e., "Be fruitful and multiply"...or simply removed altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordDimwit (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The name itself violates NPOV

message: I have asked for a POV review of this article.  It weighs heavily on sources who advocate the doctrine, and suffers from the absence of verifiable analysis from uninvolved sources.  I am concerned also that the absence of independent sources gives too much attention to sources which are advocates of the movement, which makes the article seem too promotional.  More independent sources are sorely needed here, and statements must be verified against them, with much less reliance on books and policy papers from individuals promoting the cultural mandate.Professor marginalia 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the new version is still un-sourced, but its specific statements should be found to be more easily verifiable than the version which it replaced. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check

message: I agree that the talk of and mis-association with theonomy must be clarified, probably by expansion.
The relationship is one-way.  The Cultural Mandate does not actively feed the Dominionist or Reconstruction movements.  But it is not uncommon to hear these movements appeal to the cultural mandate, esp. with respect to creation-based dominion ideas.  They do feed off it.
CM does not necessitate Theonomy, but Theonomy requires some sort of CM, whether Kuyperian or Augustinian.
Collin Brendemuehl 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Theonomy question 

message: A good dominator protects from all possible dangers.
But how far should this protection go?
Page 398 to 403 in the book "Calculation ERROR" describe a new concept how far the "Cultural mandate" has to go.
It's a description of civilization levels and the abilities of each civilization level:
Level 0: Helpless like a baby
Level 1: Able to ward off immediate threats
As an immediate threat, you can see everything, that has caused in the past billion years mass extinctions. Part of this is also to prevent a catastrophic climate change. 
Level 2: Moving around planets
In the next billion years the sun will shine only 8% stronger, which can be compensated by an expansion of the orbit to 155.4 million kilometers. 1000 times more electric power than is generated today and 100 times more electric 
Level 3: Survive wild changes of the sun
From a yellow main sequence star to a red giant and white dwarf. Shall our end look like this, or will we develop during the billion years as a level 2 civilization the technology to survive also this?
Level 4: Beyond this universe
How will our universe end? Is the end of this universe the big bang of a new universe? Furthermore, there is no hard evidence today. Anyway, a Level 4 Civilization is one that survived the end of this universe.
The idea, that the "Cultural mandate" has to be taken so much further
is impressed in a new paradigm: Infinitism
Image of God tells us, we would be a shame for god, failing to survive.
Pege.founder (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far should the Cultural mandate go? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cultural mandate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903084637/http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml to http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The commandment to "Be fruitful and multiply...." is NOT only a Christian text, and both Jews (in whose Bible it first appeared) and Muslims also find it incumbent on them.
This whole article needs to be rewritten (and probably renamed) so that it is clear that there is a commonality to all Abrahamic religions as well as unique differences in each faith's interpretation and emphasis.
Big job, and I've not yet decided if I want to sign up for it. Talk messages to me may help me decide. Does anyone else care? --Eliyahu S Talk 21:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I care. This article is deeply problematic, particularly from a non-Christian perspective. newmila (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Christo-centric 

message: This is just a note to later contributors of this article that some more material can be found in this old version of the article, it wasn't very well sourced and was a bit evangelical in tone. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted content 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to "Be fruitful and multiply"   (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural mandate →  – "Cultural mandate" is not a neutral term. It is used almost exclusively in Calvinism and Evangelical Christianity. In Judaism, many other branches of Christianity, and in critical contexts, it is generally referred to in the "standard" ways (chapter:verse, quoting directly, etc. LordDimwit (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll point out that For God so loved the world redirects to John 3:16, and not vice-versa. Lots of other articles use this title format as well. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 March 2021