[BibChr]

Then you're changing your argument. Before, you were trying to argue that an act is intrinsically moral, irrespective of motivation. But here, you're arguing that the same act can be moral or immoral, depending on motivation.

The Christian has no such tension. Motivation matters. And as I've developed at some length, the greatest and all-overriding moral imperative is love for God. It trumps everything else, or taints it by its absence.

Dan

[TheOtherOne]

Before, you were trying to argue that an act is intrinsically moral, irrespective of motivation. But here, you're arguing that the same act can be moral or immoral, depending on motivation

Not quite. I was saying that I do not think a motivating belief in God makes an act moral, versus the same act by a non-beliver. I agree with you that the motivation of the actor can change the nature of the act. However, I do not think that an act gains goodnees because it was God who motivated it.

So your example of the marriage, assume that marriages like that exist, both types.

I see two groups, but I guess there are four. (1) Married for love - belief in God, (2) Married for love - no belief in God, (3) Married for career - belief in God, (4) Married for career - no belief in God.

The two groups are those that married for love and those than didn't. In your example, the belief in God would not affect the acts themselves.