Blondie, I don't have access right now to the WL CD to look at the context of your quotes (except the first one). However, none of them appear to be pulling the "only God can read hearts" card with reference to who would survive Armageddon. I am wanting to know if this has ever been done in such a context (i.e. in an article like the one in the KM about "Lives are at Stake!" posted earlier). I see they are refering to human judicical rulings back in the israelite times and in today's modern time with the JW judicial commities or appointment of elders, etc.
Using your first quote with more context, I could see how a JW read the following and then perhaps attempt to apply this "principel" or "concept" to Armageddon:
Our Viewpoint May Be Distorted or Limited
15 The second factor to remember when we are faced with a situation that appears to be unfair is that our viewpoint may be distorted or limited. It can be distorted by imperfection, prejudice, or cultural background. It is also limited by our inability to discern motives and to know what is really in people’s hearts. In contrast, both Jehovah and Jesus have no such limitations.—Prov. 24:12; Matt. 9:4; Luke 5:22.
16 Let us analyze the account of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba. (2 Sam. 11:2-5) According to the Mosaic Law, they deserved to be executed. (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) Although Jehovah punished them, he did not enforce his own law. Was that unfair on Jehovah’s part? Did he show favoritism to David and violate His own righteous standards? Some Bible readers have felt that way.
17 However, this law on adultery was given by Jehovah to imperfect judges, who could not read hearts. Despite their limitations, they were enabled by this law to be consistent in their judgments. On the other hand, Jehovah can read hearts. (Gen. 18:25; 1 Chron. 29:17) So we should not expect that Jehovah would have to be restricted by a law he designed for imperfect judges. If he were, would that not be like forcing someone with perfect vision to wear eyeglasses that are designed to correct the vision of those with defective sight? Jehovah could read the hearts of David and Bath-sheba and see their genuine repentance. Taking such a factor into consideration, he judged them accordingly, in a merciful and loving manner. 1
The article talks about David breaking the Mosaic Law in such a way that he deserves death, but God jumps in and pardon's his crime, because David was truly repentant. The point being made is that God was not unjust, or showing favortism to David, for allowing him to keep living. The reason is because only he can read hearts.
So, I can see a JW take this and see, perhaps, an analogy between this situation and Armageddon and reason, "Our literature says that God will draw all those deserving of life to his organization, therefore when the end comes only those associated with the organization will be saved. Yet, I know there are likely good people that aren't JWs who I hope God will have mercy on and save as well. If he can intervene despite the official rules for David, why can't he do the same for people at Armageddon?" However, is such an argument logical?
Besides this reasoning exibiting Special Pleading 2 as mentioned in my first post, I'm wondering if it also exhibits the following logic fallacies:
- Weak Analogy 3, 4. For this fallacy to occur there has to be a sufficent difference between non-JWs getting saved at Armageddon and the analogous one with God intervened for David since he can read hearts. The Armageddon senerio is a primary example of divine judgment, wheras the David one was originally of human judgement (to which God choose to sidestep standard operating procedure to judge for himself). Could there also be a stronger analogy for Armageddon than comparing it to how God dealt with David? Well, low and behold we have one -- The Flood of Noah's day. In fact the Bible compares Armageddon to the Flood. How does the Watchtower answer these questions: How many people were saved outside the ark? Zero! Does this imply that everyone therefore that did not head the warning died, and god was justified for killing them? Yes. Could there have possibly been "good people" that died becuase they simply did not want to adopt Noah's belief system? Yes. Do JWs use this analogy to show why people must be part of God's Organizaition? An emphatic yes! The David anology also seems to possibly be a Begging Analogy becuase it is is Begging the Question?
- Begging Analogy5 , a form of Begging the Question 6,7 . Begging the Question, has nothing to do with the common expression, "this begs the question", as in, "this prompts the question." Rather, Begging the Question is a form of fallacious circular reasoning. This logic fallacy, I admit is not the easiest to wrap my head around (please read the references, as I may be making mistakes in application). Anyway, how do we know that God will step in and save people based on their heart condition like he did with David? Well one might point to Davids example and say see, he did it then, so we know he will do it in the future. But the strength of this argument comes from a controversial point that is at issue, that God will save people despite what the WTS has written about Armageddon. It seems to me to be a circular argument, where the conclusion (God will read hearts and save right-hearted ones in Armageddon that aren't JWs) is assumed in the primise (i.e. God read Davids heart and saved him when the law he gave to Moses would have otherwise incacted the death penalty). This is more clear when we look at the loaded langague of the conclusion. The term "right-hearted" is something we also likely would attribute to David. Therefore, the premise and conclusion might as well be: "God read a right-hearted person's heart and saved him in the past, this implies that god will save right hearted people at Armagedon." Such is a valid argument, per se. Not all circular reasoning is fallacious. It becomes a problem when it does not advance our knowledge about a postion. Such advancing of knowledge would be if we start with a premise one believes and ends up with a conclusion that he previously didn't believe. In this case we start with a premise we believe, and end up with the conclusion we also (want to) believe (due to the Special Pleading, or perhaps an Appeal to Consequences of a belief).
- Appeal to Consequences of Belief 8,9 . This fallacy is reasoning like follows: "I believe God won't kill good, right-hearted people, even if they aren't JWs at Armageddon, becuase that would mean the God I worship would be unloving." Or perhaps, "I love my spouse, who is not a JW like me, thus God must show mercy to some people at Armageddon and spare them, becuase otherwise that would mean my spouse would die when the end comes."
Well, this took some work to think about and put together. I'd appreciate some feedback here. Am I misapplying any of these fallacies? Certainly it's possible my own arguments might be fallacious, and if so please point this out to me. Trying to spot fallacies in logic (and avoid making them) is not always an easy task. I don't feel that people that make such mistakes are doing something neccessarily wrong, we all get emotion at times and have biases and motived reasonings that aren't always rational or logical. I'm trying to learn to temper the non-rational logic I might have, and to know how to identify it when others are making logic fallacies.
Additionally, I'm not sure what to do with the following thoughts, but they are also on my mind: If God saved David from being killed under the mosaic law becuase of he was sincerely repentant, does that mean that all he didn't save who died for the same "crime" were unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, were they all unrepentant? Did all that die in the Flood, did they all not have a right-heart condition? Are humans generally so bad-hearted that God only ends up saving a select few?
1 "Keep On Seeking First 'His Righteousness'." Watchtower. 15 Oct. 2010: 7-11.
2 Bennet, Bo. "Special Pleading." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/164-special-pleading>.
3 Bennet, Bo. "Weak Analogy." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/182-weak-analogy>.
4 Curtis, Gary N. "Weak Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html>.
5 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging Analogy." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/qbanalog.html>.
6 Bennet, Bo. "Begging the Quesiton." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/61-begging-the-question>.
7 Curtis, Gary N. "Begging the Quesiton." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html>.
8 Bennet, Bo. "Appeal to Consequences." Logically Fallacious. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/26-appeal-to-consequences>.
9 Curtis, Gary N. "Appeal to Consequences." Fallacy Files. 20 Sept. 2012 <http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html>.