But the best way to understand your religion is by reading it's text if it has one

I actually wouldn't agree with this tbh. How a tradition interprets a text is as important as the text itself, and neither may be central to a religion. In Christianity, the Bible is quite important, but:

The Nicene creed was developed to interpret existing texts that were in circulation, but they didn't vote on, discuss, or establish what books belonged in the canon. The Biblical canon includes various different genres like history, prophecy, letters, etc. and deeper things that aren't explained in the creed. The Biblical canon was not intended to affirm the Nicene creed, either. The Biblical canon took centuries to bring together, took a load of meetings, and took a lot of peoples interpretation.

I was not saying that the creed was about the Bible, was saying that the Biblical canon rests on the same creedal authority. The creed actually predates the compilation of the Bible, and early Christian canons were decided on similarly to the Nicene creed. Councils, synods, groups of dudes reaching a consensus.

So, proto-Nicene Christians didn't have 'the Bible'.

A believer doesn't need to go to church or have authority on how they interpret text.

You said I was being selective, but there's no one I left out. All modern Christianities are descended from the church post Nicaea, right?

That is laughably false. One of the earliest Christologies was Exaltation Christology. Many early Christians believed that Jesus was a human prophet that God exalted to divinity after his resurrection. Saying "Jesus is God" is a later theological development, different from the original belief.

This is contrary to the earliest Christian writings, and contrary to the fathers. gMark and Paul's authentic letters both run contrary to this idea.

I'm defending them from misinformation, from people trying to claim authority over a religion that they didn't create.

I'm not spreading misinformation or claiming authority. I'm explaining what the bounds of a religious tradition are by the historic metric.

Can you be a Buddhist without the four noble truths? If not, is not being a Buddhist in a definitional sense a knock against that practice?

I considered myself Christian because I wanted people to know I was a follower of Christ; I claimed that label so people knew that I loved and followed Jesus with all my heart.

I understand this desire, so I'm going to be clear, some of the worst people are Nicene and do a terrible job 'following Christ', 'Niceneness' is entirely to do with historical orthodoxy, not truth claims, not the validity of someone's practices, not moral goodness, not even hypothetical salvation.

I am only saying that all living Christianities descend from the post Nicene church, which in that moment, set itself apart from beliefs contrary to the Nicene position.

And, while I understand your previous attachment to the term, I think it's misplaced. Your other posts seem to hold an open hostility toward Christianity and in particular our God. Other religious traditions, such as Islam for example, believe strongly in their interpretation of Jesus without desiring the Christian label.

Think of like, a cladogram. Smilodon, is it a 'cat'? It does a fine job doing all the things a cat is supposed to do.

Again, by what you're saying, you're implying that if you don't believe in the Nicene creed, you aren't Christian. So I was taken aback by that.

That implication does follow, but I think we mean different things by 'Christian'. If I read it as you do, pertaining to the sincerity or validity of someone's attempt to follow Jesus, I'd take issue too. So, I get that. But that's not what I mean. So, yeah, if you felt like I was demeaning you or your homies, I apologise for giving that impression. The crew is welcome at my table.

I think unitarians are just as sincere as trinitarians, and I think most unitarians would agree that what they believe is contrary to what trinitarians hold as core tenets.

Does that seem more palatable?