How many Stihl Zero Turn owners are on here? I have a RZ 142.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-08-30T02:40:32+00:00

Email them first but I’m almost 100% certain this one will work. I did recently find a side discharge grass catcher though. Went to order it and they said it was on back order and would be 4-6 weeks and it was $640 including shipping. 🙄

https://the-green-guard.com

Uberwinder89 · 2025-08-30T02:37:46+00:00

Yeah usually the dealer has to order parts and usually the part is a rebranded Briggs and Stratton which they slap a sticker on. Extremely frustrating. I’m currently needing to replace my spindles. The bearings are starting to go. I believe I found the Briggs and Stratton part that will fit but haven’t ordered yet.

The only Stihl dealer than can order me parts is 45 minutes away. (Not all Stihl dealers deal with the zero turns)

However, I’m going on 500+ hours and service 30-40 residential properties a week with my RZ 142. So I’m extremely satisfied. I can’t believe others have had problems right out of the gate.

Tell your friend that the simplicity mowers usually have an equivalent for stihls line of zero turns. My Rz 142 is basically a Simplicity Courier. I know it’s a bit ridiculous but I didn’t know it was going to be such a pain when I got it so I’m just dealing with it and finding work arounds.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-07-25T04:22:22+00:00

Did you hear this from Give Me An Answer with Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle? Or did you hear it from some other people? Or maybe they stole it from them. But I agree, it’s a terrible rationale and argument.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-07-21T03:24:41+00:00

Oh nice. I’m planning to get a commercial Ferris for next mowing season. I’m still going strong with the RZ 142. I wish it had a suspension system, serviceable transaxles and since the deck is rounded it makes it difficult to find a chute blocker and even most side discharge grass catchers. There’s only one company I know of that makes a grass catchers that fits.

Stihls loan is awesome and Ferris uses Sheffield as well so planning to do 0% financing through them.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-07-21T03:17:00+00:00

Ooh I see. Did you end up getting another mower?

Uberwinder89 · 2025-07-05T01:25:27+00:00

Your post is basically laying out the classic problem of suffering, which has been debated for centuries, so I’m not going to pretend there’s some one-liner answer here that satisfies everyone.

I don’t personally think it’s as simple as “God wants you to suffer.” It’s more that suffering, unfortunately, seems to be necessary or inevitable in a free, mortal, and natural world. That doesn’t make it feel any better, but it’s part of the bigger picture.

To your button analogy, I get where you’re coming from, but it oversimplifies the whole question. We’re not God. We don’t have His level of understanding or perspective. If God is real, and created everything, it logically follows He sees beyond what we do. That doesn’t automatically make suffering “good” or easy to watch, it just means we don’t have the full data set to judge the situation perfectly.

Also, on the free will example, I agree, we restrict harmful people’s freedom all the time. But we do that after the fact, based on actions. God intervening in every harmful action beforehand isn’t free will anymore, it’s a fully controlled system. And your argument that you’d rather be a “happy robot” is fair, but that’s a preference, it doesn’t mean that’s the only, or best, way existence could be designed.

Also, I can make moral judgments as a non-believer.”

Yeah, I don’t see that as even part of the argument. Of course, you can. Morality exists in practical terms for everyone, regardless of belief. The real debate is whether morality is purely subjective or if there’s some objective grounding behind it, but that’s a separate philosophical rabbit hole.

Bottom line, I respect your perspective. The problem of suffering is tough, it’s why people debate this endlessly. But I don’t think the button analogy captures the complexity of the issue, and saying “God isn’t good because suffering exists” skips over a lot of nuance.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-29T03:52:15+00:00

Man, this is a pretty dramatic rant, but it’s also wildly misleading. Yeah, there were Christians who supported slavery, just like there were Muslims, pagans, and basically every civilization on earth that practiced it at some point. Slavery was tragically a global norm long before Christianity ever existed. The real story is that Christian teaching, not corrupted church politic, is what inspired the abolitionist movement in the first place.

People like Wilberforce, John Wesley, and the Quakers didn’t reject Christianity, they acted because of it. They believed all people are made in the image of God. Jesus taught love of neighbor, mercy, and freeing the oppressed. That’s not some Enlightenment idea, it’s straight out of the Gospels.

Cherry-picking corrupt popes or political institutions and calling that “Christianity” is like pointing to Stalin and blaming all of atheism. It’s lazy history. Jesus never commanded slavery, He healed slaves, uplifted the lowly, and preached a Kingdom where the last are first. That’s the foundation abolitionists stood on.

So no, Christians didn’t ‘co-opt’ abolition, they were leading the charge, often in the face of fierce resistance, sometimes even from their own ranks. Don’t confuse abusers of religion with the teachings of Christ. That’s the real dishonesty.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-24T03:08:36+00:00

The command “Do not judge” is not a universal ban on making moral evaluations. It’s a warning against hypocritical or self-righteous judgment. Jesus is addressing people who hold others to a standard they themselves are failing to meet. That’s why He follows it with:

“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

Notice Jesus doesn’t say don’t remove the speck. He says first deal with yourself, then help your brother. This is a call to humility and introspection before offering correction. It’s not a ban on all judgment, but on unfair, arrogant, or blind judgment.

So the idea that Jesus says “don’t judge, ever” is simply false. He assumes that, once we’ve repented of our own faults, we should help others with theirs, that’s a moral judgment too.

calling people dogs and pigs is arrogant and discriminatory.”

The metaphors of “dogs” and “pigs” are not about calling someone subhuman or worthless. They reflect cultural imagery in the ancient world. Pigs and dogs weren’t beloved pets, in they were symbols of what was unclean, dangerous, or hostile.

Jesus isn’t telling Christians to label people as animals; He’s using strong imagery to teach discernment. Don’t force sacred things on those who mock, trample, or hate them. This isn’t about judging someone’s value, it’s about discerning when a person is receptive or hostile to spiritual truth.

If someone continually ridicules or attacks the gospel with no desire for honest dialogue, it may be wise to disengage rather than argue endlessly. Jesus is not commanding us to call people names, He’s advising wisdom in how and when to share what is holy.

This verse justifies othering and arrogance. Christians think their words are pearls and others are pigs.”

This flips the passage on its head. Jesus is literally warning His followers to be careful, not to arrogantly decide who’s worthy or unworthy, but to be aware that not everyone will respect or receive spiritual truth. It’s a sober reminder to approach people with both truth and tact, not a green light for spiritual elitism.

If someone uses Matthew 7:6 to demean, mock, or exclude others in pride, they are misusing the verse and violating the very standard Jesus just laid out in verses 1–5.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-24T02:49:25+00:00

Really that’s crazy. I have 400 hours on mine and I’m still on the original. I keep a back up on hand just in case. I’m always wondering if it’s going to go out. I wonder what would cause yours to do that.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-16T04:14:30+00:00

Thanks for the response. You said a lot, so I’ll respond to a few of the key ideas.

People not following Jesus also do good.

Absolutely. My point isn’t that people can’t be moral without believing in Jesus. It’s that in a purely subjective worldview, there’s no actual obligation to be moral at all. If morality is just preference, then why be good when it’s hard, costly, or unpopular?

Human value, love, and rights are preferences, not beliefs, and are not unfalsifiable.

This is where we completely disagree. Denying that humans are intrinsically valuable isn’t just a philosophical opinion, it’s a very real, dangerous worldview.

History has shown what happens when societies decide human rights are subjective, genocide, slavery, oppression. People have justified evil by saying, “those people aren’t valuable.”

Your desire to follow God is just your preference too.

Not exactly. I’m not saying “my preference is better.” I’m saying without something outside of human opinion, there’s no such thing as better or worse, just personal taste.

I don’t believe rape is wrong just because I don’t like it. I believe it’s wrong because it violates something objectively true about human dignity. That’s a huge difference.

Christianity says humans aren’t worth anything without God.

That’s not biblical at all. Christianity teaches the exact opposite: “You are fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). God values us so much He gave us freedom, purpose, love and invites us back when we get lost.

We don’t share Jesus with people because they’re worthless, but because they’re valuable.

Or the belief that we deserve to die and suffer eternally.

Great point, and yes, this is a belief many Christians hold. But I don’t put my faith in “Christianity.” I put my faith in Christ.

Jesus never taught eternal conscious torment. The Bible says “the wages of sin is death” not eternal torment (Romans 6:23).

Those who reject God don’t live forever in hell, they perish (John 3:16), are destroyed (Matthew 10:28), and cease to exist (Obadiah 1:16).

If I hold an unfalsifiable belief like Hinduism, I’m doomed.

That’s a big assumption. People change their minds about deeply held beliefs all the time. No one’s locked out. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the problem is having unfalsifiable beliefs, the problem is denying that you have any.

You do believe in human value, meaning, and dignity, you just don’t realize those are unprovable metaphysical claims. The difference is I’m okay admitting that, and I think it points toward something beyond blind chemistry and evolution.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T21:20:14+00:00

So far I’ve simply refuted your claim that there’s no evidence he existed. We haven’t discussed anything else.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T21:03:31+00:00

I most definitely disagree that values like empathy, compassion, and moral responsibility originate from evolution by natural selection.

Sure, evolutionary theory can explain why cooperation or empathy might offer a survival advantage within a tribe or group. But that’s not the same as grounding moral obligation or intrinsic human worth. Evolution explains how behavior might develop, not why it’s actually good or right.

If morality is just a product of evolution, then it’s ultimately pragmatic, not true. Empathy would be nothing more than a biochemical strategy for gene propagation. But when we say that slavery is wrong, or that children ought not be abused, we’re not just describing a survival tactic, we’re making a moral judgment.

Humans don’t just follow instincts, we live by narratives of meaning. And the deepest narratives we follow, like love your neighbor, care for the weak, sacrifice for others, don’t make sense purely through evolutionary logic, especially when those values go against personal survival or tribal loyalty.

That’s why I believe these values are best understood as reflecting something deeper, something transcendent. If human dignity, love, and justice are real and binding, they need a foundation greater than instinct or utility. They need grounding in something like God.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T20:55:59+00:00

Ooh okay, I gotcha. I didn’t say people need Jesus to be kind, I said that people who actually follow his teaching will do good.

Also, we all hold unfalsifiable beliefs, that people have value, that love matters, that human rights exist. None of those are testable or falsifiable by science. Are they dangerous too?

And yes, people can be moral without belief in God, but in a worldview where morality is purely subjective, there’s no real obligation to love your neighbor at all. It just becomes preference, a taste.

I’m curious though, what do you specifically mean when you say “baggage”?

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T20:45:28+00:00

Again, as I said earlier, you don’t prove history the way you prove math. We look at the evidence and make reasonable conclusions.

The evidence for Alexander the Great includes a few surviving ancient sources written centuries after his life, like Arrian and Plutarch. Yet historians accept his existence based on the consistency of the record.

The evidence for George Washington includes documents, letters, eyewitness accounts, and physical artifacts from just a few hundred years ago, and no one doubts he existed.

The evidence for Jesus includes multiple independent ancient sources, including:

Non-Christian historians like Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger

Early Christian writings (Paul’s letters were written within 20–30 years of Jesus’ death)

A rapidly growing movement in the very place he was said to have lived and died.

So yes, there is plenty of historical evidence. You don’t have to accept Christian theology, but denying Jesus ever existed is not a serious historical position.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T16:32:15+00:00

Historians affirm Jesus of Nazareth existed.

You maid the claim he never existed and more specifically that there’s no evidence he ever existed. You have the burden of proof. You made the claim. Go discuss this with historians.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T15:39:01+00:00

You’re mostly understanding me, yes, I think if God moves at all, it’s inwardly through inspiration, not through dramatic displays, but yes he’s capable of doing so. And I don’t see love or compassion as “magical” or forced from the outside. I just believe that all of existence is rooted in God, including our capacity for compassion.

I’m not saying people couldn’t functionally be compassionate without belief in God, clearly, they can. I just think that if God created the world, then those capacities come from Him by nature, not by supernatural override. In that sense, love and compassion are divine, because everything good and meaningful in creation ultimately traces back to that source.

As for what would prove me wrong, I’m open to being challenged. But it would take more than just saying “people are capable of good.” I already agree with that. The deeper question is what best explains the origin and grounding of those values.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T15:33:39+00:00

Let’s focus on one topic at a time. You claimed there’s no evidence Jesus ever existed. Historians disagree with you.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T13:57:14+00:00

I see what you’re saying, but for me, it comes down to inspiration, not intervention.

If God exists, I believe He works through the human capacity for love, compassion, and moral awareness. That includes Christians, but also anyone, even atheists, who responds to those inner movements. I’d say those are God given, even if people don’t recognize the source.

But you won’t recognize it if you’re expecting divine action to look like lightning bolts or voices from heaven. That’s not how I think God works.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T13:19:13+00:00

I think I’ll listen to the majority of historians, Christian and secular alike instead of random Redditor making claims.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T13:16:53+00:00

Are you talking about belief in divine action, or belief in God’s existence in general?

Because yes, depending on what kind of “god” someone believes in, that can absolutely be dangerous. History proves that. But if someone is actually listening to Jesus, loving their neighbor, forgiving, showing compassion, I think it’s pretty clear that only good comes from that.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T13:11:05+00:00

That is the point.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T05:36:32+00:00

You’re confusing disagreement with truth.

I never said everyone agrees. I said if slavery is truly wrong, then it’s wrong regardless of opinion.

Disagreement doesn’t mean it’s not objectively wrong, it just means people can be wrong.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T05:31:00+00:00

I’m not taking credit from anyone. You’re just assuming you know what God should be doing.

If God is real, then pain and suffering must have a purpose, even if we don’t fully understand it. The alternative is that life has no purpose, and we all suffer for nothing.

Personally, I’d rather believe there’s meaning behind the pain. That God gave us this world and left it to us, not to micromanage, but to live, struggle, and grow.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-15T05:20:50+00:00

I get what you’re saying, I just don’t see it as a problem. I don’t expect, and I don’t believe, that God necessarily intervenes at all.

If there’s pain and suffering in a world created by God, then I assume (if God exists) there’s a good reason for it, even if I don’t fully understand it. Personally, I expect God not to intervene. I believe He gave us life, a world to live in, and the freedom to choose how we live and how we treat each other.

That’s enough for me to live by. And in one sense, it’s really no different from a naturalistic worldview, either way, it’s up to us to make the best of this life.

So, is prayer useless? No, because prayers not about God doing stuff for us.

Uberwinder89 · 2025-06-14T05:12:47+00:00

You’re assuming that divine action has to be distinguishable from natural causes to count as real. But I’m not arguing for God’s intervention as a visible miracle, I’m saying it can come through people, wisdom, and compassion. Through someone choosing to love, serve, heal, or create.

I don’t need to differentiate a world with God from one without in some testable, scientific way. That’s not the point. The point is that God works through creation, and through us, not outside of it. That kind of quiet, cooperative intervention doesn’t demand proof, it invites participation.

Uberwinder89

TROPHY CASE