Your definition of Christianity/a Christian is likely incorrect

• "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
  

I think a starting definition will use common Christian words which commonly are used in different meanings and contexts. 

• Agreed
  

what is and isn't the definiton/true of the following terms:

-Sin. Does breaking a rule suffice?

-Believing in Christ, in the context of the required belief spoken of which leads to salvation. That "whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life " (or be saved). This belief. 

Biblical faith when referring to belief in the existence of God, the diety and resurrection of Christ. That kind. 

The defined purpose and importance of good works.

• Broadly speaking, the prioritization of projects, enterprises and policies estimated to derive the greatest benefit for the most people in an effort to improve overall human satisfaction and sustainability.  Spiritually speaking, the outward expression of agape; the instrument of God's benevolence.
  

The defined purpose and importance of baptism.

The Christian definition of your status when born. Born sinners, that kind of thing. 

Let's start here as these are the most often areas I see unbiblical definitions used to argue against Christianity. Well and also by loads of Christians not citing the true teachings of Jesus. Some id go as far to agree with the Bible and say they're not true Christians. 

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
  
• Implicit to this right is the freedom to identify ourselves by any we choose to nominate.  No other human holds the right to define an of age human's religion for them.
  

• "a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:
  
• During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.
  
• Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.
  
• In short: both arguers should agree on a definition and stick to it."
  

YOUR means "CON's" or in this particular my, "oromagi's"

DEFINITION is "a clear instance conforming to the dictionary or textbook definition."

CHRISTIANITY is "an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"

CHRISTIAN is "of, like or relating to Christianity"

LIKELY is "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring"

INCORRECT is "erroneous or wrong"

BURDEN of PROOF:

WIKIPEDIA advises:

• "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
  

• CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims (that any given definition of one commonplace word is probably wrong). 
  
• PRO bears the burden of proof in this debate.
  

CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous.

what is and isn't the definiton/true of the following terms:

-Sin. Does breaking a rule suffice?

• SIN is "a misdeed, a flaw"
  

• BELIEVING is the "act or process of having faith, trust, or confidence in"
  
• CHRIST is a "title given to Jesus of Nazareth"
  

• So, let's say that BELIEF in CHRIST is "trust or faith in at least one Christian element"
  

• Therefore, admiration for the Golden Rule is one kind of BELIEF in CHRIST, Luciferianism another.
  
• Most Muslims are properly seen as BELIEVING in CHRIST while most Jews are not.
  

The defined purpose and importance of good works.

• Broadly speaking, the prioritization of projects, enterprises and policies estimated to derive the greatest benefit for the most people in an effort to improve overall human satisfaction and sustainability.  Spiritually speaking, the outward expression of agape; the instrument of God's benevolence.
  

The defined purpose and importance of baptism.

• Membership ceremony
  

The Christian definition of your status when born. Born sinners, that kind of thing. 

• Human
  

• As a reader of the Bible, I don't interpret Christ as encouraging humans to separate the true Christians from the false Christians.  I think Christ would say treat all your fellow humans as you would any true Christian and leave the judgement to God.  In the Parable of the Weeds, Christians should emulate the wheat, not the reaper.
  

• CON asserts that FREEDOM of RELIGION is a fundamental human right.
  

• PRO asked me to define the terms of this debate and I chose to go with generally agreed upon, dictionary sourced definitions.  No ad hoc re-definitions of Christianity according to minority theological principle should override any human's right to define their faith as they see fit, within or without Christianity.

•  For Christianity, I have one request. To then agree upon what is meant by followers
  

• Someone acting in conflict with the tenants of their religion is not a true follower of that religion, regardless of any claims to identify as that religion. Again a silly example, but so I'm clear. If the Bible says worshipping other God's is a sin and someone says they're a Christian and for them it's perfectly fine. They're not actually a Christian. Ill give an acronym for this. PFB, or professing false believer. My reason for caring, it's unfair to argue in opposition to any religion based on actions or beliefs of an individual claiming to be a follower, but are in direct conflict with that religion. I wouldn't argue why Jesus isn't God as a Christian even if every professing Christian said He wasn't. Because that's not what the Bible clearly says. 
  

 Optional membership ceremony?

• Fine
  

Can I ask to use as a workable definiton (expanding on status within the worldview): human, with no sin having been committed, but a sinful nature (sinful nature defined as a craving to sin, stronger in some areas than others for each person)?

• I'd say some degree of fallibility is inherent in the human condition.
  
• "Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join/ To err is human, to forgive divine." -Alexander Pope
  

I believe Christians are called to point out theological fallacy in other believers and deliver this correction with humbleness, gentleness, and respect. Specifically core points which would classify the errant believer as not actually a Christian (a false Christian). One such example. A "Christian" saying God doesn't exist. Silly but gets to the point

• Here we disagree.  However humble the original intent, has there ever been a bloodier or more sinful purpose than Christians pointing out the theological fallacies in others?  Many have their own individual interpretations of Christ's word but the notion of "correction" upholds one man's interpretation as superior to another's and in that presumption of superiority a host of harms is justified.  
  
• By CON's definition of Christianity, an atheist can also be a Christian.
  
• The philosopher George Santayana identified as both atheist and Catholic.
  
• The present dictator of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko identifies as both atheist and Orthodox.
  
• According to research in 2007, only 27% of Catholics in the Netherlands considered themselves theist while 55% were ietsist or agnostic deist and 17% were agnostic or atheist.
  

if all other religions make contradictory truth claims to Christianity (they do), then it follows if Christianity is true, the others, by definition, must be false. 

• PRO agreed that he must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous but  PRO has mostly already conceded all that definition except for a special religious test for FOLLOWERS, which CON refutes an appeal to religious purity.
  
• I look forward to PRO's R2.
  

id propose this as a definition I would agree to. an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ where the follower has obtained salvation according to the standard set by Jesus Christ.

This is explained by the understanding the categories of Old Testament law and how Jesus changed aspects of this.

Ousting sinners is different than using scripture to correct errant thinking

 [490]'s calling to, not arithmetic, but scale of the ideas in play.

--In the above provided definitional sense yes.

In the sense that Jesus referred to when he talked about dying to yourself and picking up your own cross daily, I disagree. 

• PRO must provide evidence that JESUS said that FOLLOWERS of CHRIST must die to themselves and pick up crosses or else fail to qualify as FOLLOWERS.
  

• SIN is "a misdeed, a flaw"
  

-- ill have to just conceed. I can make an argument here but it's longer.

Using strict follower definition you're not wrong.

• PRO concedes salvation need not be a condition for CHRISTIANITY

If the simple standard is believe and be saved, the demons should have been saved by definition. 

This is 100% correct

• To be clear, CON has already argued that Atheists who admire and study the word of Christ can call themselves Christian with as much authority as those who believe that Christ is a deity. 
  

Simple discourse and Biblical discussion (all thats called for) can never be bloody

• "NO-body expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
  

 If I say I'm a believer in the US constitution and am acting in accordance with it's text, but don't treat all men as created equal. Does the constitution not support that or am I just wrong?

CON recommends conduct to PRO in light of PRO's concession.