What is a 'true Christian'?

Quite frankly that definition is ridiculous given the fact that the term Bible is a modern construct. (Well at least relatively modern) 'Bible' is clearly not synonymous with the term 'Scripture'. In fact not a single word in the Bible refers to the Bible. Jesus himself never spoke of the Bible. Nor did Yahweh for that matterAnd ultimately being a Christian must be about what Jesus said and did. Even the things Paul and Peter did, said, and wrote must take a back seat to that. I think we can do a little better than that. I'd say that a Christian is someone who knowingly puts into action Christ's teachings. That would I think include not condemning or separating yourself from those who do not know of Jesus. It certainly would not include not giving food and water to the woman at the well.

That's all I see as well as far as Jesus classifying souls. Just two options. But I also see a description of how you end up on the right rather than the left. The description also seems to be the bane of those who practice Dispensationalism. I don't know for sure how you feel about that, but your failure to see the point is highly suggestive.Try not to allow your disdain to prevent you from noticing when someone other than you has a point.

You'd likely have to drop the young earth nonsense, but that would not interfere with believing that Jesus was resurrected.

Did you even read my post? What did I actually say about the resurrection?Dumbass.

Did I deny the resurrection or say it was optional? No moron. And did you note his explanation makes you look even more like an idiot given that he says he is addressing Catholic scientist's post. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Literalism as a distinction between what many fundamentalists believe and what an even larger number of protestants accept really only has to do with how a few passages of scripture. In other cases it is easy to demonstrate that fundies are playing fast and loose with the text.For example, the fundamentalist reading of prophecy in Isaiah cannot possibly be defended as literalism of anything like that applied to the genealogy of Noah in Genesis. He seems to stop short of that view in Message 47

As risky as saying that some goats will end up on the right side of Jesus?

When I was reading your post, I lost track of what the antecedents where for your pronouns. By the time I got to the sentence I quoted above, I had no idea what you were to say.What is it that constitutes Christianity in name only?