> 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 thi

> 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.