Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 5

= February 5 =

Proof that proto indo europeans lived in eastern europe.
What archaeological and genetic proof is there that indo europeans were originally from eastern europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical language which gives identity to a hypothetical group of speakers who didn't leave any written documentary evidence to link them to the term. So, to my knowledge, we don't have any archaeological evidence for such a group, but someone better read on the subject than I am could probably tell you what archaeological evidence has been found there. I think it's in the region of the Ukraine you're thinking, right? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

What about genetic proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.201 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also a tricky one. I mean one thing you could do is to find certain genetic similarities in various groups of people that are most prevalent in people from that specific area, but that's about all I remember from those types of studies. Someone with a far better understanding than I have would have to comment on this. Again though, this is a language-based identity and without written examples you can't do the best thing which would be to tie material evidence to human remains. Then you have a shot at having found a 'Proto-IE' person, but even then you'd need more than one example to get anything concrete. I think it's more an archaeological question than a genetic one and the material evidence likely isn't there (Though absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is Kurgan hypothesis... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David Anthony, listed in the "further reading" section of the article AnonMoos linked to above, provides detailed archeological evidence for the Pontic-Caspian origin of the Proto-Indo-European language. The author also claims tha its speakers were responsible for horse domestication and the invention of spoked wheels and chariots. — Kpalion(talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See Luca Cavalli-Sforza's genetic analyses from the 90's. He analyzed a large number of genetic foci among Europeans (and various other populations) and noted that certain genetic traits tended to vary in a correlated way.  He then seperated out these components, and mapped them.
 * His first component map of Europe shows a trend out of the Middle East, which may have to do with the expansion of farming, or simple population pressure at the end of the last ice age.
 * His second map (accounting for the second largest trend in European genetics) is quite striking, showing an expansion out of the lower Dnieper river vally, that fits very well with the Kurgan Hypothesis.
 * μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * They must have lived in Eastern Europe at some time or another, in order to get into Western Europe. Hittites were in the Middle East, and Celtic and Germanic tribes we all over Europe (and even in Western China - plus, don't forget the Tocharians) at the time of the estimated date of Proto-Indo European (3,000BC). The Indian subcontinent had already been inhabited by Indo-Europeans. The 'proof' that was given to me, that Indo-Europeans 'originated' in the Caucasus regions (or at least, somewhere north of Turkey), is that the words for beech tree (*bagos) and salmon (*laks) are prevelant in most ancient P-IE languages, and the only place where both co-exist is in that region. Bear in mind, that language change is a continuous and ongoing process, and dialects will spring up, split off into separate languages, and borrow from each other as trade increases with more discoveries and technology. The idea that a language existed at a certain time in a certain region and then spontaneously exploded into lots of other languages is not exactly how to view it. There was no standardization in those days, as there was no writing system for P-IE. It was borrowing from neighbours who either spoke P-IE or didn't, and also lending them words, too. Language exchange is an important part of language change.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an ideological issue in India. For religious reasons some Hindus finds it "offensive" that Sanskrit may not have originated in India. This overlaps with post-colonial attitudes which see the notion of invading "Aryans" in terms of White supremecism and as a kind of emblem of British rule. Hence the notion that the British made up the trheory to (a) justify their rule and (b) undermine Hinduism. The need for 'proof' that 'that indo europeans were originally from eastern europe' arises from this preoccupation. Of course there is no 'proof' as such, and it's unlikely that there could ever be. There is just a lot of evidence. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It has become over-politicised, not least by the Nazis and the subsequent lack of adequate academic denazification. Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans gives various contradictory quotes about where the PIE homeland "must" have been, and devotes a chapter to the question. It seems most likely that the homeland was somewhere around the Caspian. To the West is Europe, to the East, Asia. Not so many kilometres but a huge ideological distance. The Indians are right that the British did posit Aryan invasions as a racist trope, to vindicate their idea that lighter skinned northern Indians were "martial races" and also particularly suited for their Civil Service. The Hindutvas are, however, quite wrong in assuming that the introduction of Indo-European languages equates to invasions of people. The whole Aryan invasion thesis predated the discovery of the Indus Valley civilisations. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To a significant extent it only really became identified as an "invasion" after the discovery of the IVC, as the advent of I-E languages seemed to coincide with the fall of the Civilisation. Ironically, this actually changed the portrayal of the Aryans. They come to be seen more as Vandal-like barbarians overthrowing a peacful high culture than as a superior race taking over from primitive Australoid aboriginals, which was the common view beforehand. Paul B (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith -- Regardless of the semantics of the word "invasion", early Hindu religious writings are actually very compatible with the hypothesis of an origin of Indo-European languages outside India, since the earliest writings (Rig-Veda etc) refer to a culture of animal herders and charioteers roaming the Punjab, while later classical Hinduism is mainly based on settled agriculturalists along the Ganges valley... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the Indian nationalist claims, which contradict all evidence, Gimbutas, Mallory and Cavalli-Sforza, in three different disciplines, come up with the same Pontic-Caspian homeland. The only other serious contenders are Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, who chose an Armenian homeland based solely on typological factors, and Renfrew, who arbitraily identifies the Indo-Europeans with the first agriculturalists, which is off by thousands of years based on all actual evidence.  Pastoralism in the area is known to postdate the beginning of agriculture by millennia.  And typological arguments simply ignore the fact that languages, related, say, to the North-West Caucasian languages (see Colarusso's Proto-Pontic) had all the typological characteristics necessary to explain how a horse-domesticating civilization speaking an Uralo-Siberian language could have assimilated a more densely popualted Caucasian language, with a reanalysis of the former tongue under the influence of the latter producing PIE.  In any case, no set of data agrees in the way Gibutas's archaeological evidence, Mallory's linguistic evidence, and Cavalli-Sforza's genetic evidence does. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a lighthouse. Your call.
Does anyone know of any land-based lighthouses that have been destroyed by a ship colliding into them? I was able to find some lighthouses destroyed by collisions, such as the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light and the Savannah Light, but all of them were stuck in the middle of the water, in places that would otherwise be shipping lanes. Basically, I'm imagining a lighthouse destroyed when a ship goes aground in an egregious fashion, e.g. if a ship takes out the Fairport Harbor breakwater and destroys the Fairport Harbor West Breakwater Light, or if a ship hits the cliff underneath the Split Rock Lighthouse and causes its collapse. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I just read a story about a train that went speeding off the track and into a baggage facility, killing no one.
 * I imagine lighthouse disasters are equally bloodless and more remote, probably why I don't remember them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Bell Rock Lighthouse was smoked by a helicopter in 1955. Not destroyed, but not pretty. The Argyll almost hit it in 1915, but the reef got between them. No casualties there, either, of 655 aboard. Also took a whooping from machine guns. But no ship-on-house violence. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The question title refers, of course, to the lighthouse and naval vessel urban legend. But if you look at the "See also" section of that article, you will find three actual examples of collisions with lighthouses:
 * Elbow of Cross Ledge Light, a New Jersey lighthouse that was hit by a ship in 1953
 * Moreton Bay Pile Light, an Australian lighthouse twice hit by ships

A Google search on the obvious keywords produces two Google Books hits: Ship Collision Analysis: Proceedings of the international symposium on advances in ship collision analysis, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10-13 May 1998 edited by Henrik Gluver and Dan Olsen; and Ship Collision with Bridges: The Interaction Between Vessel Traffic and Bridge Structures (1993) by Ole Damgaard Larsen (a name surprisingly similar to "Dan Olsen"!). There seems to be a technical glitch keeping Google Books from showing me any pages of the first book, but on page 66 the second one refers to an actual collision of "a 10,600 DWT vessel" against "the Drogden lighthouse in Copenhagen", so there's a fourth example. By adding "Drogden" to the search, I then found this PDF document which on page 5 gives the position of the lighthouse (apparently in degrees and decimal minutes, equivalent to 55.54°N, 12.71°W) and tells some of the story (in bad English) but does not give the date or the name of the ship. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read my question again. I'm asking about ships hitting lighthouses on land, not lighthouses on water that sit in shipping lanes; I even linked the Elbow of Cross Ledge Light in my original question.  Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like asking something ridiculous like "has anyone ever tripped over a tree branch thirty feet in the air". Lighthouses on land are unlikely to have been destroyed by ships beaching themselves.  Any ship large enough to do significant damage to a light house would have grounded itself well before reaching the beach.  -- Jayron 32 21:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? What would prevent an unguided, misguided, or maliciously guided ship from crashing into a lighthouse at the end of a mole, or hitting a cliff and damaging/destroying the lighthouse at the top?  Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What does the title of this section mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above: it refers to the lighthouse and naval vessel urban legend. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a lighthouse, but the very stupidly conceived and placed Port of Genoa control tower was felled by a ship in recent years, with seven dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9g4RyWs5MA --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed that that we don't have an article on that 7 May, 2013 collision between the Linea Messina cargo ship Jolly Nero Genoa Port Control Tower, as it was unusual, deadly, and destructive. Our Port of Genoa article doesn't even mention the incident.  I've been unable to find any information on the result of the investigation, with the most informative article I could locate being this one published only two days after the accident when rescuers were still searching the rubble for missing personnel.  The only later information I've located is this mention of plans for a replacement tower.  The Italian Wikipedia page it:Jolly Nero does discuss the incident, and mentions finding the body of the 9th victum ten days after the collision, but has no discussion of root cause and investigation. -- ToE 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Whenever anyone mentions an "inland lighthouse", the Lighthouse Methodist Church always springs to mind; it's in Walthamstow in London, about 5 miles from the nearest navigable water. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From the nearest easily navigable water, but only a 200 metre hop from the Dagenham Brook. A jetski with fins might stand a chance at crashing it, if the wind's just so. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

industrial revolution
Why didn't China, India, the middle east, nor ancient rome go through an industrial revolution?They were certainly quite advanced civilizations.Roger adams49 (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed by various historians etc. Slavery was widely practiced in ancient Mediterranean civilizations, and political and educated elites often disdained craftsmen who performed actual physical labor (see Banausos).  In China, trade was disdained by official Confucian ideology (see Four Occupations), and industrial/commercial wealth could be subject to arbitrary governmental expropriation, so that merchants often hastened to set themselves up as landowners and join the gentry-officialdom class... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A BBC documentary called Why did the Industrial Revolution happen here? is worth a watch. I probably shouldn't tell you that you can find a copy of it on YouTube. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Guns, Germs, and Steel proposes a solution to this question; the author believes that a core reason for European industrial superiority was basically environmental. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also worth pointing you towards Industrial Revolution. The only adequate way to summarise that discussion is that it's all very complicated. --Antiquary (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not trying to be obtuse here, but I feel the need to point out that these places did go through industrial revolutions. Just later. Well I guess "ancient Rome" didn't but later Rome did. There's a ton of speculation about what might have happened if a steam engine were ever mass produced in Rome, and many people agree that they were rather "close" in some sense. For our coverage, see Hero_of_Alexandria, Roman technology and History of the steam engine. If you want more speculative stuff, you'll have to google for it, perhaps like this SemanticMantis (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. One thing to point out is that, while traditional Chinese historiography treats "China" as a cohesive single nation state with a single language, history, and culture stretching back to time immemorial, in reality Chinese history is no less complex and complicated, with periods of tribalism, empire, petty states, empire again, etc. etc. than was European History. So when one says "Ancient Rome", one cannot compare it to "China" without saying "China when"  Technologically, China during the same time period as the Roman Empire was at least on par with Europe, if not a bit ahead, and during the early middle ages, it absolutely was ahead of it.  China began to lag behind for various internal political reasons.  IIRC Niall Ferguson in one of his books, maybe "Civilization", posits that European disunity actually generated the sort of competition that allowed it to outpace China, which at that time was a unified Empire.  Contrawise, when China was the most innovative was during periods of political disunity, for example during much of the time when Europe was undergoing the demographic collapse of the Middle Ages, China wasn't really all that unified under a single Emperor: Sixteen Kingdoms, Southern and Northern Dynasties, Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period was when China was "ahead" of Europe, innovating all sorts of cool stuff like gunpowder and paper and things like that.  When China became at once unified and isolationist, it began to lag behind.  Furthermore, "India" as a place under a single state is a modern invention as well.  It has only been since the Political integration of India in the middle 20th century that India has existed as a state, rather than simply a peninsula off the south side of Asia.  India is likewise as diverse and complex, historically, as Europe has been.  -- Jayron 32 20:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." MChesterMC (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Link: The Third Man. -- ToE 13:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * SemanticMantis -- Hero of Alexandra was probably the most prolific inventor and engineering writer of Classical antiquity, but he concentrated on military technology and "temple wonders" (i.e. gadgets to impress rustics and uneducated people attending temples in Alexandria). His version of the steam engine (the "Aeolipile") was not intended for practical horsepower-generating work, and there's no evidence that anyone tried to adapt it for that purpose. I really don't think that Greco-Roman civilization was just one small missing link away from an industrial revolution; rather there were a lot of attitudes and institutions that would have had to change... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, absolutely. My understanding is that the lack was more in terms of the cultural goals and "attitudes and institutions" as you say. But in terms of scientific and engineering concepts, I think it's fair to say they were quite close. If they had seen it as a potential military technology... well, that's why people like to speculate and write "alternate history" about ancient Roman steam engines :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The economic upheaval caused by the Black Death led to the end of the feudal system and "free" labour, giving rise to increased prominence of the "merchant class" and a reduction in the power of the nobility. Then came the acquisition of a vast empire by the British, which increased the flow of goods into and from Britain and consequent rise in demand for industrial processing. The cost of labour caused innovative ways to increase productivity per worker, thus the Industrial Revolution. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article Great Divergence contains a lot of ideas about "why not China". Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've now begun to answer this question, it is a really useful and involved answer that is taking me days to write, but should be enormously useful feedback, one of the best things you'll have ever gotten. (I'll replace this text with the complete long answer.) However in this case for a specific reason which I'll mention, I'll include additional specific requests simply due to the huge amount of time involved in my answer - be prepared that these will be relatively large requests, and you will have to meet them to get such huge amounts of my time again. I won't post anything for a few days now as this is going to take me huge amounts of time just now. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what are you saying about requests? I apologize if I misunderstand you comment, but it seems rather strange to me. It's fine let us know that you're working on a long answer; I'm sure many of us will appreciate it. But who are these unknown parties that must meet some "relatively large requests"? All action here is voluntary. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you do want to participate that's great too. But this reads to me like you are (or are planning on) making some sort of demands, and I don't think this is the place for that. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Romans were actually very good, industrially speaking.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will need an extension on this due to a death in my very cose family (a parent.) i've collected a lot of information but am not ogiung to write anything just now.  I will reply directly the person ('roger adams') who had asked on their talk page. by the way this is a matter of public record, and a hobby for me. it is fully transparent to all parties esp in the west. u.s., uk, etc.  i only use public sources, and my goal is increasing progress and understanding.  my aim in the world is huge amounts of growth and innovation and mutual understanding.  i want to make the world a better place.  212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interracial adoption: what about interracial couples?
Hi! The relevant Wikipedia articles and reference desk entries and every paper I've been to find on Google Scholar on interracial adoption seem to assume that both adoptive parents are of the same race. But I see no reason why that has to be the case. I've only found one legal case, Campos v. McKeithen, in which one of the one of the would-be adoptive parents was of the same race as the child and the other wasn't, but that fact was only mentioned in passing because the outcome of the case would have been exactly the same anyway had both parents been white. So, is it not considered an interracial adoption in the US in that case? Intuitively, it would seem to me that it has to be one, because the child can't belong to the same race as both of his/her parents... Thanks for your replies :)JaneStillman (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There may not be any "official" term for it, since the law doesn't care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the USA but in the UK mixed-race couples are actively sought out as potential adopters. They would sometimes take on a child who was black, not mixed-race, but if possible a family will be found who share a background with the child. There are various considerations. Will the child be stared at in the street, as obviously not the natural child of the accompanying adults? Will the parents be able to sympathise if the child experiences racism? Will the parents be able to provide help with such basic things as how to keep hair tidy and attractive? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP seems to be asking for a strict definition of "interracial adoption". What, if anything, do the Brits call the scenario you describe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no official definition. This article points out some of the nuances. Most attention has been on children who are either mixed race or both natural parents black being placed with couples who are both white. I remember very well from my teenage years in the distant past how isolated black children could be when adopted into an all-white community. Then the pendulum swung to a situation an exact match was required "the child is Nigerian-English, and these prospective parents are Jamaican-Scottish, obviously no good". Now it's swung back a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are Catholic churches not considered "megachurches"?
A single Catholic parish may have thousands of members on a Sunday, with each liturgy performed at different times of the day. Members are usually people within a geographical parish. So, why are they not considered "megachurches"? Why is the term used exclusively to refer to Protestant churches? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Megachurches are defined by more than just the number of members or the size of the worship church. The Megachurch movement is a distinct movement within American Evangelicalism of which having a massively large congregation is an important defining characteristic, but it is quite important to note that Megachurches should be seen as specifically an outgrowth of American Evangelicalism and not merely defined by any Christian congregation whose membership reaches some arbitrary plateau.  Don't fall into the trap of the etymological fallacy: that a word's meaning is only defined by it's etymology.  That is clearly not the case here, nor is it really the case for any word.  Instead, you need to understand how a word came to be in its historical and social context to understand what it means.  In this case, the word "Megachurch" developed as part of American Protestant Evangelicalism, and is only to be properly understood in that context.  Big Catholic Churches are just big Catholic Churches.  -- Jayron 32 20:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's just like the word homophobia. By etymology alone, it looks like it means fear of sameness, but by taking the social and historical contexts, it really means "aversion to or discrimination against homosexuals". 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Phobia" and "aversion to" are pretty much the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, Bugs. They can overlap, but are not synonyms. I am averse to liquorice (I hate the taste), but I'm certainly not afraid of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An "aversion" is "a turning away from", which is what one general does with something one is fearful of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are famously averse to "fly-by" unregistered users. Are you saying you fear them?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder than words. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What actions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Come, come, we don't need to revisit that. The quoted expression is of your invention, I believe. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What quoted expression? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fly-by". --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * the subject was an aside, and doesn't need to be turned into a personal issue that belittles the effects of actual prejudice. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As to the actual nature of the Catholic Church, it is both the individual parish churches (the buildings on your street or wherever) and the "Church" or "Catholic Church, meaning that the parish church is a bit like a franchise of the broader church. Megachurches often don't have such an affiliation and may be Non-denominational. Mingmingla (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So we have these individual large-membership churches, i.e. "megachurches". Then we have the Catholic "mega" church. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Mega" has no meaning in Catholicism, which basically has parish churches, episcopal cathedrals and national basilicas. Even in a large Catholic church you won't find the minister cavorting around, talking like a carnival barker, asking for emotional audience responses to his alternating ejaculations of salvation and fire and brimstone.  Megachurches are much more like tent revivals and televangelist ministries.  Not ceremony, majesty, and dignity; but enthusiasm, charisma, and ecstasy. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mega" need not be a term used by the Catholic church in order to be true. It simply means "big". And the word "Catholic" itself means "universal" and thus implies "big". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the word was untrue (in fact words cannot be true or false, only propositions). I said it has no meaning as such in Catholicism. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * True. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hm, I missed the universal=big part. But electrons are universal, while not being big.  I think Catholic is meant to imply worldwide, not architecturally upsized.  (Kata holos means acrost all in Greek) I'll add an image or two.
 * μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The churches may or may not be big, but The Church is big. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the universe. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the main purpose of serving food after a Protestant church service?
What is the main purpose of serving food after a Protestant church service (regardless of the time of day)? Is there any theological significance behind the practice? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you care to be more specific, which protestant denominations do that? I don't know of a single one that traditionally does that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. 140.254.136.149 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It must be a custom they've developed over time - and perhaps an incentive for people to show up to the service. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My church occasionally holds a potluck luncheon following the late morning service. The point is to practice fellowship, to strengthen the church community. We don't do it every Sabbath as it would be to demanding of the members, as they are the ones supplying the comestibles, and perhaps they have other Sabbath activities to tend to. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Originally it was coffee and maybe cookies after service while adults talked and children went of to Sunday school. Then more cookies and maybe tea and cocoa since not quite everyone drinks coffee - and since cookies are not so healthy add some fruit, then vegetables, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because people are both hungry at that time of the day, and enjoy each other's company. -- Jayron 32 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We have tea, toast and Marmite at my church. God only knows. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fellowship gatherings are not theological in nature, but social in nature. Many (most) Protestant churches have a "Fellowship hall" of some sort so that members can actually meet and socialize with each other after services. Many years ago, when people could take hours to reach the church, such an opportunity for a light meal before heading home was nearly essential. Collect (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an old joke that coffee is an unofficial Sacrament in the Episcopal Church. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some churches still have people travelling long distances; when I was in high school, our church had one family that drove 90 miles one-way to church, and another that went nearly an hour. The congregation's since gone to having a lunch every other week, due partly to the distances involved.  Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no particular mystical significance, but Christianity has had a tradition of sharing among its followers for its entire existence. Early Christian gatherings were usually held in people's homes, and food would usually be brought by members. After all, according to Christianity's own scriptures, its founder said, "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." This just makes things like the prosperity gospel and the modern U.S. right-wing worship of wealth and power hilarious and/or depressing to anyone who's actually read the Bible (I'm a U.S. citizen, so I claim the privilege of complaining about my fellow Americans). --71.104.75.148 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

See also: Agape feast. Collect (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)