God himself couldbnt sink this ship


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 11, 2000
2,524
26
313
You are probably right, Kyrila. Personally, I am always surprised to discover that some people think God would be bothered about this sort of thing - I mean, in 1912 there must have been plenty of more worrying things to have concerned Him. Like the build-up to WW1, well under way in 1912 etc. However, even in 2004 He keeps being hauled aboard to justify more and more causes and actions. Re 'Futility', there is a very long history of life imitating art - most of the canon of science fiction can claim to congratulate itself here. In the UK, we are well on the way to 1984 ....
 
E

Ezzer X

Guest
Michael H. Standart just to let you know I have read many books on the Great ship, videos, etc.. when I speak on the account it's funny cause when you stop and think about it don't it seem a bit odd that it took Titanic 2 1/2 hours "40 minutes to sink, most ships sink faster, no mater the size.., 2 and a half years to build. and when it did sink it was totally destroyed being split into three parts.. "Don't get it twisted because I love the great ship and have plans to go to south hampton to see the berth from which she departed.." what people easy to forget is that on a religious point there is a super being which "I believe there is a God" and he does not want to take life at all but he will prove to man that he is the all mighty.. even some of the survivors of Titanic even said by them making the statment even God himself could'nt sink the ship" was flying in the face of God.. and as far and close calls White Stars Olympic class was troubled with many close calls with other ships.

I'm not tring to create a stir I speak on the facts have been shared throughout my time reading various novels on Titanic's History..

Titanic was and will be The Greatest ocean liner in the World "I think that nobody could have built it better than White Star..
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Michael H. Standart just to let you know I have read many books on the Great ship, videos, etc.. <<

So have I. So what? It doesn't mean anybody is inspired inerrent on the subject.

>>when I speak on the account it's funny cause when you stop and think about it don't it seem a bit odd that it took Titanic 2 1/2 hours "40 minutes to sink,<<

No. It really isn't. Each shipwreck is different in a number of respects. Some, like the Lusitania will plunge to the bottom in a matter of minutes while others could get creamed in a running firefight with a warship and still take all day to go down.

>>most ships sink faster, no mater the size.., 2 and a half years to build. and when it did sink it was totally destroyed being split into three parts.. <<

That's a nice string of non sequiters there. Would you care to come down from the mountaintop and put it in something a bit more readable, and in something that positively links cause and effect?

>>"Don't get it twisted<<

I didn't. I clearified it.

>> because I love the great ship and have plans to go to south hampton to see the berth from which she departed.." <<

Glad to hear that. Enjoy your trip.

>> what people easy to forget is that on a religious point there is a super being which "I believe there is a God" and he does not want to take life at all but he will prove to man that he is the all mighty..<<

A nice assertion, which is utterly untestable by any means. That's why religions of any stripe are referred to as matters of faith, not fact. Being Catholic, I have some definate beliefs myself, but I temper it with the understanding that I could be wrong, and avoid trying to pass any of my belief system off as fact.

>>even some of the survivors of Titanic even said by them making the statment even God himself could'nt sink the ship" was flying in the face of God..<<

Quite right. They did. Specifically Eva Hart said that. What of it? It still neither proves nor disproves the assertion that diety or a pantheon of dieties exists. Again, it's a matter of faith.

>>and as far and close calls White Stars Olympic class was troubled with many close calls with other ships.<<

Sorry, but the "close calls" experienced by White Star vessels were no different from those experienced by other ships of other lines and tended on the whole to be very minor. Cunard stands as odd man out because they had so few accidents and no fatalities when compared to other lines of the time. In light of that, why is your remark even an arguement?

>>I'm not tring to create a stir I speak on the facts have been shared throughout my time reading various novels on Titanic's History.. <<

MmmmHmmmm...trouble is that novels are not history.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
BTW, befor trying to push this 2 and 1/2 years numbers racket, you might want to check out the actual building times for Titanic from keel laying to actual completion and delivery.

•22 March 1909 – Keel for the Titanic is laid down.
•31 May 1911 – R.M.S. Titanic launched
•02 April 1912 - Trials and delivery.

That's three years, one month, and 11 days! Befor making any more claims regarding numbers, you would do well to check your facts!
smoke.gif
 
Mar 23, 2003
105
1
183
Think about it logically...close to 1500 people perished that fateful night.I find it hard to believe that GOD would punish that many people for another person or persons statement about a ship being unsinkable.

Barbara
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
11
233
I still haven't seen one on the Titanic (maybe there isn't) on COINCIDENCES (or should I say ironic references).

I know one on 911 and also the similarity of the assasinations of Lincoln and JFK - but not Titanic.
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
11
233
What I meant was not the 'bull****' that circulated about the Titanic but was the comparisons and some matching coincidences of it with other tragedies (like the JFK and Lincoln example) or comparing with itself, the date etc. (like the 911 incident) LOL.

>>Some of these so called co-incidences aren't what the popular mythos always make them out to be<<

Exactly!
 

Jeremy Lee

Member
Jun 12, 2003
1,374
11
233
Oops! Sorry!
blush.gif


But if there is one thing I can't stand, its those stories on the mummy, the 3909-04 business, and the ship being advertised as unsinkable. (Even the GCE 'O' Level examinations believed that!)
 

Rena Murray

Member
Oct 27, 2007
17
0
71
It is very foolish of man to challenge God. It is something how people say he does not exist, and then when a disaster happens, suddenly he is blamed for it.

The blame is to be placed upon all men involved. There should have been enough lifeboats regardless. Thomas Andrews was quick to point out (to many) not only that she could, but how Titanic WOULD sink that night.

Over fifteen ice warnings were sent in that four day period. Seven that last day. That calm was like a mill pond. It made it impossible to see ice bergs. It was men who decided to speed that ship up.

The binoculars were lost or stolen from the lookout post - or they would have seen it before it was right smack in front of their faces. Man's error, again - their fault that they did not have them.

They turned the starboard side of the ship to the berg. That destroyed it. Again, a man's foolish decision. Hitting head on may have saved the ship.

The nearest ship was ten miles away, and thought Titanic was having a party because she was shooting white rockets. She had no RED flares. Man's foolishness.

The ten mile away ship did not even try to come when they saw Titanic's tail light disappear. They could have saved hundreds of lives.

The lifeboats were sent off half full, and one with only twelve people. No one to blame but man. There was room for more.

You see a pattern here? Man is the fallible one!

Looks to me like God was on time, but people weren't! Don't even try to blame Him when you don't listen to His warnings.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>when you don't listen to His warnings.<<

What warnings would those be? Where in whatever sacred writings you may believe in was RMS Titanic mentioned by name in any sort of allegedly devine prophesy?

>>It was men who decided to speed that ship up.<<

A half truth. While the speed was increased during the voyage, it was nothing more then the usual running in of the engines of a new ship with an eye towards reaching the what would have been the ships expected normal service speed.

>>The binoculars were lost or stolen from the lookout post<<

No they weren't. They were never issued to begin with and normally, they wouldn't have been.

>> - or they would have seen it before it was right smack in front of their faces.<<

Unlikely in the extreme. Having stood lookout watched under adverse conditions, I know from direct experience just how useless binoculars are for searching.

>>They turned the starboard side of the ship to the berg. That destroyed it. <<

Actually, the question of how the ship was actually manuevered is hotly debated, and the reason for that is that the alleged attempt at a port around manuever describes a proposed cause leading to a known effect that cannot happen in the real world. Ships don't handle like cars.

>>The nearest ship was ten miles away, and thought Titanic was having a party because she was shooting white rockets. She had no RED flares. Man's foolishness. <<

Not exactly. The Californian was apparantly quite puzzled by what they saw. However, while an attempt at a rescue would have spared Captain Lord some incredible grief, no historian on either side of this debate seriously entertains the notion that Californian could have saved hundreds.

>>You see a pattern here? Man is the fallible one! <<

That much we agree on.
 

Eric Longo

Member
Aug 13, 2004
888
3
183
"It made it impossible to see ice bergs."

"...or they would have seen it before it was right smack in front of their faces."

?

Does "Judge not..." apply only to judgement of individuals or the whole? I will shut up now. Nothing further out of me on this at all.

Best,
Eric Longo
 
Jun 11, 2000
2,524
26
313
I don't think God had anything to do with it, though I'm not sure Rena is suggesting he did. For a start, given what else was going on in the world at the time, you'd have though he had more urgent priorities. And allowing children to die in order to punish man's technological hubris seems rather strange.

I see in the news today that the tiger will probably be extinct in the wild by 2020. Now that's something you might expect God to intervene in. But I won't be holding my breath.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
quote:

>>when you don't listen to His warnings.<<

What warnings would those be? Where in whatever sacred writings you may believe in was RMS Titanic mentioned by name in any sort of allegedly divine prophesy?

Mike -

Not siding with her, but I think what she was referring to were the plethora of ice warnings that came in. Apparently she's saying that one religious interpretation of these constant ice warnings were God's ongoing way of conveying: *whistles* "Hey, wake up and take notice of what's ahead. You'll be in deep trouble if you don't." In that sense, such warnings are, or can be, perceived as warnings from God.​
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Not siding with her, but I think what she was referring to were the plethora of ice warnings that came in.<<

Maybe but I doubt it. The use of the capitalized "His" is a clear reference to the deity. The ice warnings came from human hands, and in reality, they were not ignored. The problem here is that what little action they took was not up to the danger they were facing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads