A proof that pure logic can lead to pure absurdity. it goes as follows:
God is Love
Love is Blind
Therefore God is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind
Therefore Ray Charles is God
This proof has multiple fallacies, and someone else is welcome to post a more detailed and formal explanation. The primary fallacy relates to how is translates from English to symbolic logic. In symbolic logic or algebra, is translates as =. However, in English "is" can be used to describe an aspect of an object or subset without describing the entire object.
A more careful (but less amusing) translation would be:
Love is an aspect of God
Blindness is an aspect of Love
Therefore Blindness is an aspect of God. (Still not quite right, as Love is not completely contained in the concept of God, but moving in the right direction.)
Blindness is also an aspect of Ray Charles
Ray Charles and God have blindness in common.
To really translate the statements appropriately requires a better grasp of set theory than I have; A Venn Diagram probably wouldn't hurt either.