blaZofgold wrote:Reverend wrote:
His love is bright enough to blind him from human's true nature
Reverend wrote:but tender enough to care for them.
P but Q means P and Q, so both P and Q are true by themselves...am I approaching this incorrectly?
Hmm...
I shall say this in a more "Christian"-ic view
John 3 :16 wrote:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
and what he got was us, humans, complete with our animalistic nature and our "potential to be the same as our blueprint."
Question:
He's willing to sacrifice his only begotten son for us, (literally or not I don't know, but it's not important to the discussion right now.)
1. Isn't sacrifice a nature of love? Even if the sacrifice is more worthy than the one which that sacrifice is intended for.
In a Christian view, it's pretty clear that we were just lowly sinners, and has that tendency to repeat the same mistake.
He ignored that and went with the plan nonetheless.
2. Isn't that mean he was blinded, or rather: chose to ignore the facts that were presented in front of him aka chose to remain blind?
3. Isn't that mean he cared (and care) for us enough to do so?
I shall leave answering to each own perspective, but
That word I said, is the nature of love.
It doesn't see what kind of love god has for humans, whether: what that love's done to him.
It can't be separated since it's a complete set.
You take P only, and what you get is possessiveness, a part of love but does not comprise love by itself.
You take Q only and what you get is folly compassion, drama stuff you see in anime or other media
.
P but Q means P and Q is true, yes,
but in this case, P without Q has a different meaning of truth than the times when P goes with Q, and vice versa.
