u/Drivefast58

Recently, I've found myself questioning the hard determinism of a man like John Piper.

The more I read the Bible, the more I realize that it isn't necessary to interpret the passages about God's sovereignty and providence as if He is micro-managing every little circumstance.

For example, it isn't necessary to believe that it was God's eternal decree that I stub my toe this morning in the same way that it was His eternal decree that Christ go to the cross.

I've begun to understand God's sovereignty as 'authority' rather than 'control.' Forgive the crude analogy, but I've started to think of God's sovereign rule over creation like the sun. Without the sun, there is no grass. It is by the sun's sustaining power that grass is able to grow or exist at all. But it isn't the sun's direct will that causes every single blade of grass to sprout and reach for its rays.

Are there any other reformers who preferred a 'soft determinism' to a 'hard determinism?' If so, I'd love to be pointed in their direction.

This verse has always been another gospel speed-bump for me.

The KVJ renders it 'consolation,' and other translations render it 'comfort.'

But either way, I struggle mightily to understand why Jesus would say such a thing. On the surface, I can understand the juxtaposition of the rich and privileged to the poor and suffering. However, the way Jesus presents this truth is what I find so baffling.

To say, "But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." Implies a causal relation ship between consolation and riches. Almost as if these people received riches instead of salvation.

Two questions always spring to my mind here: weren't many of the OT patriarchs fantastically wealthy? And many die and go to hell who never sniff wealth, so are they even worse-off because they were denied earthly 'consolation?'

Furthermore, how is it any form of consolation to the rich to receive a fleeting moment of temporal prosperity when compared to eternal hellfire and damnation? Wouldn't every Musk and Bezos, if they reach judgement day as unregenerate souls, give it all away if they could, when faced with the glory of God?

You guys have been really helping me untie some of these tricky verses, so help me understand this one!

The verse about John that says, "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink," is always a bit of a speedbump to me.

Why was it important that John not drink wine or 'strong drink?' And is it somehow connected to him being, 'Great in the sight of the Lord?'

Jesus was turning water into wine, and, presumably, everyone was drinking at least wine, if not the occasional 'strong drink.' As Christians, we condemn drunkenness, but we wouldn't say that enjoying an alcoholic beverage is a sin.

So why wasn't John allowed to drink wine, and why was it important?

I'm haunted by the parable of the many talents. One of the cornerstones of my daily prayer is to fall on my face before God and beg not to be like the man who buried his talent, but to learn to take what I've been given and multiply it in the service of others and to the glory of God.

But how do I know what that looks like? I could give of my time and resources until I have nothing left. Is that what I'm supposed to do?

I was raised in a reformed context, and I've always been given strange looks when I ask this question. I get answers like, "Be content with were God has put you." Or, "You don't need to do anything special, because you cannot be outside of God's will for your life."

I understand the meaning behind these answers, but then I hit a verse like, Acts 13:35 "but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him."

With all my heart, I want to do what is right. Yes, I'm redeemed by Christ's shed blood, and yes, my place is secure in the book of life, but as I yearn to please my earthly father, I also want to please my heavenly Father.

And I don't know how not to bury the talent I've been given. More than that, there's a fear that in my false-humility as identifying myself as the man with one talent, I've marginalized my shortcomings. Perhaps, as an American born into astonishing privilege compared to most of history and the rest of the world, I'm the man who should be taking five talents and turning them into ten.

And it doesn't help that I've got John Piper shouting in my head, "Don't waste your life!"

I purchased a new HVAC system in 2020 from the most reputable supplier in my city. They've always been great to work with. I'm always extremely impressed with their techs. They are an incredible company to do business with -- up until it comes time to honor my warranty.

I got a 10 year parts and labor warranty with my system in 2020, and it's needed repair almost every year since then. Every time a tech comes out, they slip me a bill at the end, and I have to put my foot down and remind them I'm still under warranty.

The first time this happened, they ran it up to their manager, and he tried to insist I only had a parts warranty and still had to pay for the labor. I sent him a screenshot of the handwritten contract that I had from the salesman, and he finally agreed my warranty included labor.

Now, every year since, the techs still try to bill me at the end of a service call. When I mention I'm under warranty, there's no surprise or argument from them, and they just leave. It's as if they know I have a warranty on my system, but they still try to bill me just to see if I'll pay.

Is this standard practice? Why do I have to remind them of my warranty every single time?

1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.

Verse 30 has bothered me for the entirety of my Christian journey. I've asked many pastors and elders about it, and they always just brush it aside. But what's happening here? And is it still true today?

I've always had this thought in my head: could a statistical analysis be done of churches and the physical health of their congregations, and would you see much sickness in those that are abusing the Lord's Table? Could we perhaps identify those churches who were abusing the table by the prevalence of sickness in their members compared to those who aren't?

Or is that the incorrect understanding of this passage?

And to make it more complicated, would Paul's warning only apply to proper administrations of the sacrament that are being abused? So, for example, it might not be possible to abuse a Catholic mass in the same way.

Or, given that Paul appears to be reprimanding people for coming to the Lord's Table to eat their fill and so profane the sacrament, is it no longer possible to abuse the table in this way as the elements are carefully portioned out?

And, if that's the case, why didn't the early church adopt the modern method of serving a thimble of wine and a speck of bread? In this way, it appears that much sickness and death could have been avoided.

We have a nest box that plays host to a family of chickadees every year. Last year, I was saddened to find a single dead baby bird in the box when I cleaned it out. It looked fully developed and ready to fledge.

This year, I found two dead chickadee babies.

Is it most likely that these babies weren't viable for some reason, or that they died from disease? I have the horrible thought in my head that the parents simply stopped feeding them to focus on the other fledglings who did leave the nest and that those left behind slowly starved to death. Does that ever happen?

Got a screw in the tire of my 2020 Legacy that Discount Tire said they couldn't patch. They measured the tread depth on the other three tires and said I was within acceptable tolerance ranges to put on a new tire and continue using the older three.

My current tires are two years old, so I thought that was a bit odd and did some digging.

My understanding is that Subaru's tolerance for tread depth is no larger than a 2/32" difference between all four tires. After some pressing, Discount Tire admitted that their tolerance range is 4/32", double that of Subaru's.

Once they admitted this, the tech went on to discredit the notion that tread depth is a big deal in the first place, and he said that a 4/32" difference between the single new tire and the older three is fine. He claimed that Subaru is too strict in their requirements.

I asked about shaving the new tire down and was told that they don't do that anymore because: 1) It isn't necessary because the tread-depth thing is an overblown 'myth,' and 2) because it actually harmed the integrity of the tire.

Rather than argue, I just had them put the new tire on the car and decided to deal with it after the fact. So, right now I have three old tires and a single new tire with a 4/32" difference in tread depth.

Is Discount Tire correct in that this isn't an issue, or is this something I need to remedy ASAP?

I have this city park pond that's in walking distance from my house. It's the strangest pond I've ever encountered. I've been trying to fish it for years without success.

It's surrounded on all sides by overhanging bushes with two small fishing docks that extended out into the water you can fish from. It is very shallow all the way across. I've seen herons and cranes standing in the middle. From casting a weight and dragging it across the bottom, it feels like the bottom is either deep, sticky mud, or a jumble of jagged rocks.

The water itself is the color of mud year-round. If you put your hand in it, you lose visibility after only a few inches. And this pond is full of fish. If you stand on one of the docks during the morning or evening, you'll see what I guess are bass feeding on the surface. Lots and lots of splashes and jumping.

But because the water is so muddy, I have no idea how to fish for them. They can't see any lures in the water, and they don't respond to any surface lure I've tried. I've seen many people trying to fish there, but they all have the same story. No bites.

The pond is also filled to the brim with carp, which are the only thing I've been able to catch using a ball of white-bread fishing off the bottom.

Any ideas on how to fish this place?

I remember playing this game when it came out without much problem. Now, almost ten years later on a more powerful rig, I'm experiencing stuttering and FPS issues that make it almost unplayable.

In particular, if I zoom out to the 2D campaign map, which is the same one used behind the diplomacy screen, my FPS drops into the single digits.

I've tried everything I can think of to fix this, and I've spent quite a few hours trying to find a solution online. I even found a mod on the Steam Workshop that claims it addresses stuttering issues with the UI on the 2D map, but it did nothing to help my issue.

The ONLY thing I've seen make a small dent is the issue is to lower the UI scale to the smallest setting. That lets me scroll the 2D map at what feels like 10-15 FPS. But the settlement icons are too small to see. Strangely, the FPS drop seems to be associated with the UI icons of all the different faction settlements. If I keep zooming out until the UI badges disappear, the FPS returns to a smooth 140.

Anyone have any ideas how to fix this? I'd really like to dive into this game again, but this issue makes the game too annoying to play. Every other part of the game runs great at max settings. But dropping into single digit FPS every time I need to use the diplomacy screen is unbearable.

My system is:

32 GB RAM

Nvidia 4060 GTX

Intel i5 13400 (10 cores)

The game is installed on an SSD

To put this question in context, I have a seven-year-old blonde-haired blue-eyed girl that gets lots of attention wherever she goes. I could watch over and protect her while she was a baby, but as she gets older, and she pushes for more independence, I can feel the fear and tension in my heart start to grow.

If something terrible were to happen to her, I think I would break apart at a sub-atomic level.

I pray without ceasing for God to protect my family, not just my girl, but my wife and other children as well. I desperately cling to the promises in the Bible that God watches over and establishes His children.

But in the back of my head, there's always this insidious voice whispering to me that these prayers are a fool's hope. After all, other Christians endure much suffering and heartache, so why should I be any different? Am I selfish for praying for safety and security when other people have their lives torn apart by random violence and tragedy? Have my prayers up to this point meant anything, or is it just random chance that God has sustained us this far?

It's hard to answer these questions in light of a reformed understanding of God's sovereignty, because I must confess that anything that happens, even the most terrible, falls within that sovereignty.

I'm sure I'm not the only one to wrestle with this tension. Have any of you come close to getting the upper hand on it?

Me and my wife seem to have a habit of picking churches on the cusp of massive growth. We'll attend a church for 5-7 years, watch it grow to almost double its size, and then I get antsy.

My wife prefers huge churches we can get lost in. I prefer smaller churches with no place to hide. Which leaves me feeling very disillusioned as a church starts pushing the 600+ member size.

This creates some tension between us.

And now I'm wondering, is it wrong of me to feel such a strong aversion to bigger churches?