[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.

[BibChr]

No, in Jesus' construction (which is mine because I believe Jesus), all acts are affected by whether one has or does not have a relationship with God. Because, as I keep saying, it is the moral imperative that comes before and overrules all others.

It's a matter of whether you see God, or yourself, as the center of the universe. If God, everything changes. If yourself -- then whatever, dude.

Dan

[BibChr]

(-- as the kids say.)

Dan