Nicolaism Becomes a Serious Force within Christianity

The 4th century Christian bishop Epiphanius of Salamis wrote of a heretical sect called the Nicolaitans, that their supposed founder, the 1st century deacon Nicolas, had stated that "Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life." The Nicolaitans were held by the early Church to practice sexual indulgence and promiscuity.

We know little of what the Nicolaitans actually believed, since the only evidence we have is the writing of the orthodox church fathers who were engaged in suppressing them. And Epiphanius of Salamis is not generally held as the most reliable of sources.

But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that Epiphanius was correct, and the Nicolaitans did believe that one had to copulate every day in order to achieve eternal life. Descriptions of the activities of the Nicolaitans indicate that "copulation" did not necessarily mean sexual intercourse in the usual fashion...they were accused of engaging in "unnatural" activities, so we can assume that orgasms obtained through oral sex and masturbation count toward the total needed to obtain eternal life.

Let's also assume that they become a rival current within Christianity, at odds with the orthodox view of sex as a necessary evil, legitimate only in the cause of procreation.

Can such a sect survive? Might this be the form of Christianity which Rome later adopts as a State religion (after all, the Romans were pretty hedonistic people, by all accounts, and Nicolaitan philosophy might fit very well into their world view). Perhaps we see Roman Emperors feeding Orthodox Christians to the lions while partying with the Nicolaitans? ;)

How would this affect the development of Christianity overall? Does clerical celibacy win in the end, as in OTL?
 
Last edited:
There's a religion for that now?

Sweet.

In all seriousness, look at society today. Most people do this for the sake of it. I think it'd be very difficult for someone to distinguish between a Nicolaitan and a non-religious person.

"I have sex every day because I'm a Nicolaitan!"
"I have sex every day because my girlfriend's really, really hot!"

I'd suspect that after they start getting old they'd realise that their plan for eternal life didn't work, but the real question is would they regret it?
 
There's a religion for that now?

Sweet.

In all seriousness, look at society today. Most people do this for the sake of it. I think it'd be very difficult for someone to distinguish between a Nicolaitan and a non-religious person.

"I have sex every day because I'm a Nicolaitan!"
"I have sex every day because my girlfriend's really, really hot!"

I'd suspect that after they start getting old they'd realise that their plan for eternal life didn't work, but the real question is would they regret it?

Well, I was primarily thinking of how this would affect the development of Christianity and Western culture. For example, Christianity has traditionally been very ambivalent about sexuality, and in many cases, downright hostile to it. So if there is a major Christian sect out there which actually promotes sexuality as a way to attain eternal life...especially if that sect becomes dominant over time...that could have great consequences for Western culture down through the centuries. It's hard to see repressive "Victorian" attitudes arising in such a world, for example.
 
Not terribly familiar with ancient history in general, but Nicolaism kind of sounds like a vague Christian equivalent of Mithras or Bacchus, what with, er, finding joy in life and all that. Ought, then, Nicolaism be treated as a Christian parallel thereof?
 
You'd need to avoid Revelation being accepted into the canon, since in it, Jesus credits one of the seven churches in Asia Minor with hating the practices of the Nicolatians, which He also hates.
 
So you're saying that Christians would be a bunch of wankers?

*badum-tish*

But in all seriousness, profound implications in the history of western civilization are to be found here. Encouraging openness and freedom in sex tends to open up doors to gender egalitarianism, for example.
 

Keenir

Banned
It's hard to see repressive "Victorian" attitudes arising in such a world, for example.

why's that? it might go the route of "sex often, but be exclusive".


But in all seriousness, profound implications in the history of western civilization are to be found here. Encouraging openness and freedom in sex tends to open up doors to gender egalitarianism, for example.

'freedom in sex'? the OP just said "lots of sex"/"sex every day"...
 
'freedom in sex'? the OP just said "lots of sex"/"sex every day"...
The two tend to go hand in hand. Patriarchal societies strictly control sexuality as a means of reinforcing the gendered hierarchy in that society.
 
Actually, I'd expect that woman's status would degrade. If men are required by their religion to have sex nightly, then they may resort to rape if they can't get it any other way. Even inside marriage, a woman may well be looked on, not so much as an equal partner, but as merely a tool for getting to the afterlife.
 
Last edited:
If sex leads to heaven what about masturbation? Still a nono or would that get you or a relative out of purgatory.
 
Actually, I'd expect that woman's status would degrade. If men are required by their religion to have sex nightly, then they may resort to rape if they can't get it any other way. Even inside marriage, a woman may well be looked on, not so much as an equal partner, but as merely a tool for getting to the afterlife.

That's a fair point. You might see rich men trying for polygamy too, to ensure there's someone available every day.
 
We have to assume that patriarchalism influences church doctrine as well. In particular, I'd say that it would become dogma that men have to have sex every day. I really doubt that a religion would have gained much influence back then if it promotes the same for women. After all, the Romans were hedonistic, true, but they wouldn't allow women what was allowed or accepted for men.
 
I'm not sure that a religion which is both in favor of monogamy and requires sex every day can exist. I think one or the other had to go, and entirely sensible considerations will mean that the Council of Nicolaitan Bishops will decide at some point in the 4th century that men should have sex as often as possible in order to get to heaven, with the "best" having sex every single day.
 
Didn't the Celtic Church oppose sex less? I'm not sure that they advocated it, bur...

"How the Irish Saved Civilization" makes the claim that the Christian organizations in Ireland and the Celtic fringe were less sexist and less anti-sex than the mainstream Catholic Church, but...

1. How separate the "Celtic Church" was from mainstream Catholicism is debatable.

2. This could be attributed to cultural differences between the Celts and the Greco-Romans rather than a theological difference.

I recall hearing a Greek visitor to present-day Marseilles (which was founded as a Greek colony) complaining about how un-submissive Gallic women were. And the Gauls, like the Irish, were Celts.
 
We have to assume that patriarchalism influences church doctrine as well. In particular, I'd say that it would become dogma that men have to have sex every day. I really doubt that a religion would have gained much influence back then if it promotes the same for women. After all, the Romans were hedonistic, true, but they wouldn't allow women what was allowed or accepted for men.

Such a thing if applied to women as well as men, would likely encourage younger marriage for women--get them having sex (within marriage and thus not sinfully) as soon as possible.

This could get bad... :eek:
 
You'd need to avoid Revelation being accepted into the canon, since in it, Jesus credits one of the seven churches in Asia Minor with hating the practices of the Nicolatians, which He also hates.

That's true. Or, you'd have to have the Nicolaitans adopt their own scripture which excluded Revelation.

But in all seriousness, profound implications in the history of western civilization are to be found here. Encouraging openness and freedom in sex tends to open up doors to gender egalitarianism, for example.

keenir said:
'freedom in sex'? the OP just said "lots of sex"/"sex every day"...

Actually, I'd expect that woman's status would degrade. If men are required by their religion to have sex nightly, then they may resort to rape if they can't get it any other way. Even inside marriage, a woman may well be looked on, not so much as an equal partner, but as merely a tool for getting to the afterlife.

That's a fair point. You might see rich men trying for polygamy too, to ensure there's someone available every day.

Well, remember, women have to copulate every day to achieve eternal life as well, so they are going to be motivated to have sex. It's not going to be looked at as something dirty that a woman does because it's here "wifely duty," it's going to be looked at as something that has positive benefits for the woman, as well. And copulation need not mean intercourse...the Nicolaitans engaged in "unnatural" acts such as masturbation and oral sex as well...so a man need not have access to a woman in order to achieve it. So the stimulus to control women so as to have ready access to sex will be much less than one might think.

We have to assume that patriarchalism influences church doctrine as well. In particular, I'd say that it would become dogma that men have to have sex every day. I really doubt that a religion would have gained much influence back then if it promotes the same for women. After all, the Romans were hedonistic, true, but they wouldn't allow women what was allowed or accepted for men.

Well, early Christianity was quite egalitarian in it's attitude toward women, and the religion managed to grow, so I don't think this is a valid objection.

I'm not sure that a religion which is both in favor of monogamy and requires sex every day can exist. I think one or the other had to go, and entirely sensible considerations will mean that the Council of Nicolaitan Bishops will decide at some point in the 4th century that men should have sex as often as possible in order to get to heaven, with the "best" having sex every single day.

There is no reason why monogamy cannot exist in this scenario. As stated above, if the married couple doesn't want to engage in intercourse, they can pleasure themselves at their own convenience through masturbation. This would give them the flexibility to look after their spiritual life even if they are not "enamored" of their partner at the moment.

why [would it prevent the rise of repressive "Victorian" type sexual mores]? it might go the route of "sex often, but be exclusive".

Even if it did end up being monogamous, that does not mean it's not less repressive. Victorian mores tended to interfere in the marriage bed, too.

If sex leads to heaven what about masturbation? Still a nono or would that get you or a relative out of purgatory.

Masturbation is allowed, and indeed, would be indispensible to such a system, as intercourse every day is simply not possible for most people.
 
Top