Talk:Be fruitful and multiply

The name itself violates NPOV

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)

Cultural Mandate – NOT

This is frustrating, to read articles like this. Whoever reads it should read the quotes from Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, ALL the quotes. The quote included here is from page 47. She also talks about the Cultural Mandate on pages 48-49, 50, 72, 81, and 129. In Note 29 to the quote from page 47, which is on page 399, she also writes that for a more detailed treatment of the Cultural Mandate, one should read chapter 31 of How Now Shall We Then Live, (a book written by her and Chuck Colson) which is entitled, “Saved to What?”

Once your read all this then the reader will easily see that there is no need for discussion of subjects like theocracy, Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism, Kingdom Now theology, or to call the Cultural Mandate a type of Theonomy. These terms come from the radical fringe of Christianity.

If you say that “(t)he Cultural Mandate is probably most closely aligned with Neo-Calvinism,” then you are starting to go in the right direction. Pearcey learned from Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer learned from Van Til and Dooyeweerd, and Dooyeweerd systematized the work of Kuyper. When all of them write about the Cultural Mandate, they are all talking about the Lordship of Christ over all of life. And this Lordship of Christ is not a theology or way of life that is an “in your face,” or “our way or the highway” type of theology and way of life like the radical fringe promote. It is one that is taught through what Schaeffer called the Mark of the Christian. All men are to be treated with dignity and respect because they bear the image of God and all Christians should love each other as Christ loved us. For if we don’t then the non-believer has every right to ask the question, “Why should I have anything to do with Christianity?”

Pardon me for being harsh. It’s just frustrating to constantly see articles in Wikipedia that are trying very hard to put people like Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, and Chuck Colson even close to the same camp as the radical fringe of Christianity. As always, I’m open for discussion :-) --Awinger48 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to "send" you a message here in wikipedia, but I got your note about being frustrated with the Cultural Mandate page. You sound like you are more knowledgable on the subject than me, but I just created it because it was absent.

I think you should add your notes about the line of thought predeseccors. I mentioned the more fringe groups, not to sully the image of the Cultural mandate, but to try to show how it relates to similar but different, related theologies - I tried to put it into a type of continuum between radical Reconstructionists and Isolationists. In the middle of that continuum are a host of acceptable choices.

I don't see theonomy as a bad thing, and I do think that the Cultural Mandate is certainly a type of theonomy, don't you? I mean, is there some negative connotation that we are trying to avoid.

Please, edit the Cultural Mandate page as you wish. But if you could compare/contrast it to other movements which outsiders might confuse it with, and show where it is on the continuum regarding Christian biblical invovement in politics and culture, and also add its theological and philosophical lineage, that would be great. Sorry to frustrate! :D dgsinclair (early September 2006) (originally on talk page for Awinger48).

Got your comments on my user talk page. Now I know I was unkind in what I said. My apologies. Your suggestions are good ones. I'm not as smart as you think on this subject. But I'm learning. Hope we can work together more on this article :-) --Awinger48 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

POV check

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)

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)

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 17:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Theonomy question

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)

How far should the Cultural mandate go?

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

earth Vs Earth ?

The article quotes the Bible as talking about dominion over the 'earth' at various points, which is the soil at our feet. Surely, it was referring to the 'Earth', which is the whole planet we live on, no?

IceDragon64 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The original Hebrew text there uses the word "הָאָרֶץ" ("ha'aretz") which could be translated as "the land" and usually in that first part of Genesis refers to the entire world. (Later in Gen. it refers to the Land of Canaan.) In Gen. 2:5, for example, the word "הָאֲדָמָה" ("ha'adamah") is used to refer to earth / dirt / soil, and in fact the name of the man -- "Adam" -- comes from the Hebrew word adamah for soil, in reference to where he (we) came from, and to where he (we) return.

HTH, --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Very Christo-centric

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)

I care. This article is deeply problematic, particularly from a non-Christian perspective. newmila (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Deleted content

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)

Requested move 10 March 2021

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" (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Cultural mandate → Be fruitful and multiply... – "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)

• Support for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Very odd title now, and not the common name. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Genesis 1:28, which is NPOV, and an existing redirect to this article. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Be fruitful and multiply. The ellipses are unnecessary. BD2412 T 05:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would add that the phrase is immediately far more recognizable than either the current title or the suggested location in Genesis. BD2412 T 22:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.