You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Having a one world order would actually be beneficial.
This is entirely dependant on what the world order's goals and objectives are. A world order that wants to kill everyone is not exactly beneficial.
A world order that promoted worldwide/universal togetherness could be nothing but beneficial for all of humanity, but one that encouraged slaughter and *total* anarchy would be destructive.
1 fallacy reported.
Begging The Question
Only two possible outcomes? How about a decentralized "world order" where people could decide how they organize matters in their living environment(s)?
Besides, anarchy means nothing but non-existence of power hiearchy and centralized control.
Beneficial for who? It's unlikely that it would be beneficial for all segments of society.
...disorderly people would be silenced?
Because everyone would live under the same laws it wouldn't be possible for one country to exploit another.
Jeremiah 10:23 says human governments cannot rule the world. Daniel 2:44 says God will bring out just one government that will be successful indefinitely.
2 fallacies reported.
Fallacy Of Red Herring
Argument from authority: Bible is an authority on a particular topic. Bible says something about that topic. Bible is probably correct.
Appeal To Belief
The Bible is almost never an authority in a real argument.
How can you demonstrate that the Bible is a reliable source?
The argument is too complex. You can switch to list view.
(3 years, 10 months ago)