what is more important..correct theology or correct actions...?

Ideally, you should have both. You need to understand that you are a sinner in need of a Savior. You need to understand that Jesus offers you the free gift of salvation. You need to accept that free gift. If understand all that, it is hard for that not to show in your actions.

Both are important, they are two different things. If your theology is correct...then your actions will be in line with that. Your actions are an expression of your theology.

No, commitment might be a better indicator. Sometimes people know what is right but are too lazy to care.

Actions. Theology has a tendency to change with the passing of time. That's why religious institutions always have to go back and try to correct themselves and clarify what they meant and play spin doctor all day with ambiguous verses of their ecumenical texts.. When you treat people with respect and dignity you have done well, and that is all that is important in this world.

Who's to say what correct theology is. So I would say correct action.

Theology shows you what kind of person you will become tomorrow and changes the heart

Actions determine what kind of karma you build up both in yourself and in others

Both are important, but Jesus said the condition of our heart is ore important than how you behave externally

hint: Plural Two Sons Jesus:

Jesus favored the right side of his goats/sheep sides war,

but his resurrection did NOT deal with the "side" effect thereof,

if Thomas put his hand in the "side" effect of resurrected Jesus.

hint: Plural Acts of Plural Apostles:

Paul presented a right side of Jews vs Paul sides war to Agrippa,

who said to Paul: ALMOST thou pursuadest me to be a Christian;

for if this man had not appealed to Ceasar, he might be at liberty.

To the PLURAL Hebrews:

Heb 9: 22 Sacrifice ALMOST purges all things (but not all things).

Heb 10:8 Sacrifice is offered "by the law', which is faulty: Heb 8;

So law is so faulty that it is "ready to vanish": Heb 8:13.

To the PLURAL Corinthians:

what's old and ready to vanish "shall vanish"; but not

until part-iality is done away when perfect-ion comes,

like child-ish things put away when man-kind: 1Cor 13.

To the PLURAL Romans:

there is no RESPECT of persons with God

(only RESPECT of persons against God)

To the PLURAL bewitched churches of Galatia:

The law is not of faith.

It was a schoolmaster that failed every student.

A mediator (Jesus) is not of one, but God is one.

To the PLURAL scatter-brained jew-ish + christ-ian brethren:

A doubleminded man is unstable in all his (broad/narrow) ways.

So an unbridled tongue is still vain religion, not (yet) pure religion.

Sweet (Grace) + Bitter (Law) ought not come out the same mouth.

POINT: rightly (CORRECTLY) dividing the word of truth

- is not left/right as a son of David did, and also got "forsaken"

- is under/above (Gen 1:6-8) as Christ did, and got "approved"

So study to shew thyself "approved' unto God has no shame,

no shame because approved does not play the blame game.

Correct action, but the challenge then, is "What are the guiding moral and ethical principles that define 'correct'?"

Putting it this way, who is more "Christian"? ...an atheist willing to share half of their sandwich with a hungry homeless child ...or a proselytizing, Bible-thumping "Christian", espousing hell and damnation?

I could argue the former.

correct theology leads to correct actions

James 2:20 - "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

I really don't get why some Christians claim that believing in Jesus is all that matters.

Read Matthew 7:21 and following. "It is not the one that says to me 'Lord,Lord!' who will inherit the kingdom of heaven, but rather the one who does the will of my father in heaven."

The operative word here is "DOES". Christianity is a religion of action, not just passive belief.