4 ms·

> An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. Maybe that's not quite "you're a bad person". But I feel like your re

by philh 11y ago

> An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. Maybe that's not quite "you're a bad person". But I feel like your reading is missing the "you should feel bad" aspect. That chapter resonates with me too, because it's pretty much exactly the sentiment I'm disagreeing with. Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. No, that's exactly wrong. If you do the right thing, that's good. If you do the wrong thing, that's bad. It doesn't matter what you were feeling when you did it. Love makes people do some really shitty things. "I love you and I want you to not go to hell, so I'm going to beat the gay out of you", for example. That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. The opposite is true as well, where people do good while hating it every minute. (No good example comes immediately to mind, and I'm spending too long on this post.) They don't lose points for having unvirtuous emotions. They did good, and that's enough.

Juliate 11y ago
> Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. I think I see what you mean. But this is not how I read Corinthians; but I agree that this may not be shared either, and I won't make this about religion, I'm really talking about the text itself. First, it does not put love before actions. It says actions/qualities (or that most of life, actually) is meaningless, nothing, without love (as an attachment to God/Truth) Second, it defines what is definitely not "love", so one may not use it as a pretext for wrong doing (at least). Third, it says that we will never see things fully, neither at once, until, that is, the end (provided it's not an ellipsis, he! :) ). Plus, "love" as expressed in this text is not Philia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia) but from Latin Caritas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29) (or Greek "agape"); which is not about a feeling, but about something way deeper, transcendant and, although not quite the right word, respectful, for one to an other. It's love as one of the three Christian theological virtues (fides, spes, caritas), that is, in an intimate relation to the Christian God (in this context) as a guide, a goal, an ideal for love/Philia too. > That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. I see your point. That love is, actually, deeply misled. Actually, that's not love, that's fear that supersedes love ("I fear that you [x] and I don't want to because this makes me [y] and I freak out and I don't think you can decide for yourself, so I'll do it and [z]"). Love (be it eros, philia or even agape) is no excuse to abuse. Good intentions don't make an excuse for incompetence.

by philh 11y ago

Juliate 11y ago

> Supposedly it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what you feel. I think I see what you mean. But this is not how I read Corinthians; but I agree that this may not be shared either, and I won't make this about religion, I'm really talking about the text itself. First, it does not put love before actions. It says actions/qualities (or that most of life, actually) is meaningless, nothing, without love (as an attachment to God/Truth) Second, it defines what is definitely not "love", so one may not use it as a pretext for wrong doing (at least). Third, it says that we will never see things fully, neither at once, until, that is, the end (provided it's not an ellipsis, he! :) ). Plus, "love" as expressed in this text is not Philia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia) but from Latin Caritas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_%28virtue%29) (or Greek "agape"); which is not about a feeling, but about something way deeper, transcendant and, although not quite the right word, respectful, for one to an other. It's love as one of the three Christian theological virtues (fides, spes, caritas), that is, in an intimate relation to the Christian God (in this context) as a guide, a goal, an ideal for love/Philia too. > That love is genuine, and it doesn't redeem the action. I see your point. That love is, actually, deeply misled. Actually, that's not love, that's fear that supersedes love ("I fear that you [x] and I don't want to because this makes me [y] and I freak out and I don't think you can decide for yourself, so I'll do it and [z]"). Love (be it eros, philia or even agape) is no excuse to abuse. Good intentions don't make an excuse for incompetence.