You're correct in that it uses the term have instead of feel, but my understanding is that it's the other way around: "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." In other words, if you act only because you expect a reward in the after-life, or because you want to show how pious you are, or simply because you are self-destructive, you aren't practicing true charity. I believe this is a deontological argument, but I'm not really equipped to discuss theology or ethics.

I'm still not understanding. Christianity isn't a works-based religion, and so the passage referring to "profit" on an eternal scale wouldn't make sense. By "profit me nothing", I understand it as meaning: personally I am not in any way becoming a 'better' person through the good works that I am doing (regardless of whether the consequences are good), because I myself am not doing them for the right reasons (that's where the deontological part comes in). I've never understood this as meaning one should have good intentions because one will be rewarded in the after-life.

Anyway, we're digressing. If you agree that it says "have love" (or charity), why in the first place would you take it as "feel"? They're two very different things.

I agree with your interpretation, and I was just extrapolating and making some logical jumps in the process. The point is that, from this point of view, a person can't rationally choose to be good. She can go through the motions, but if she doesn't have the gift of unconditional love (agape, the original Greek word), she's just losing her time. My take from this is that the act without the gift (which is internal and emotional, hence "feeling") is just as moot as the gift without the act (as described in Matthew 5.)