Fabo

BELIEVER, Husband, Father,
Cowboy-Red Raider Fanatic
...Oh, and a Legend at the Local spot.

[Glauber Costa @glcst]

15 years ago, as a rabid atheist, I met a Greek Orthodox Christian at a function and we started to talk about religion (I have never met this person again). I told him that you had to be really stupid to hold any religious belief. I was a rational man, and couldn't come to believe in made up fairy tales. Religion was not falsifiable. It was all untestable claims about the universe with no value.

To my surprise, he didn't argue, he didn't seem moved. He stated: "I agree". And upon gazing over my confused face for a second, he continued. "All religions are unfalsifiable, but one: Christianity"

He then quoted the letter of St. Paul to the Romans, where St. Paul states that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we are worse than fools. And explained that the central claim of Christianity rests on a historical claim, not a metaphysical one.
Amidst people over the centuries trying to distill Christianity to a moral set of teachings, a way of life, a philosophy, Christians keep insisting: well sure, you can do all of that. But we gather here because Christ rose from the dead. And if He didn't, we are worse than fools.

I replied that I had to concede on his premise: this was a falsifiable claim. But it was also a false claim, obviously so. So we agreed on one more thing: they were all fools!

Almost a decade later, I spent a long time - more than a year, looking deeply into the evidence for Christ's resurrection, I was convinced that by far, the hypothesis that best explained the totality of the facts was that The Word became flesh, and after his death by crucifixion, rose from the dead.

It wasn't an easy psychological process because so much of my identity rested on being the smart rational guy that was above all the superstitious nonsense.

And because it wasn't easy for me, I know it is not easy for most. Even for most of that year in which I looked at the evidence, it still all felt obviously false.

The two things that flipped me the most were:
1) My realization that I was in a sense guilty of the circularity that I accused many religious people of: I *knew* a priori that the resurrection was impossible because well, it is impossible. By already assuming this explanation was out, every other was immediately better. But once I opened myself to the possibility that it could be true, however unlikely, it changed things completely for me
2) My realization that I had to look at the totality of evidence instead of expecting that each piece of evidence on its own would explain the whole thing. Funny enough I didn't apply this standard to anything else, but applied to the claim of the resurrection.

It was a confusing time for me but I then decided that if that was true, I couldn't just sit idly and had to do something about it.

This all happened around 6 years ago. And I am here to tell you that after 2,000 years, this crazy claim survives for a reason: it is true. And if it isn't, I am worse than a fool.

Which you likely think I am, like I thought of that unnamed person whom I never met again.

I don't talk about it often and as a rule of thumb don't argue about it woth anyone, because as I learned with my own experience going through it, the frame of mind matters. Something has to click (this is true for all big mental shifts, not just this one)

Perhaps you are a recent follower of mine, and lost all respect for me now - as I would have done back then.

But I pray to the Lord that at least for some of you, I can be the small crack that opens the dam of the truth for you.

Know that Jesus Christ, God made flesh, loves you. And he offered himself in sacrifice for you.

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@flatland_sports I cant wait till fall when everyone's algorithm is gonna be set to receive notifications about Hammond getting a first down every couple of minutes, lol. You think they are pissed now wait and see. Her included.

[🦅 felipe the dogtor 🦅 @felipe4prez]

we’re gonna lose by 50

[Ryan Hyatt @RyanHyattMedia]

USA Today's @MattHayesCFB pulling no punches today regarding Brett Yormark and The Big 12...
https://t.co/AnZwsc4ApE

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@BrentScher Not gonna lie, Belgium giving off big 12 vibes right now.

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@cryptobeast Prove it!

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@fiago7 Because there is a judge in Lubbock Tx that granted an injunction in court that's why...

[CFB Junkies @gwilkie80]

I'm fascinated by the pettiness that is the @Big12Conference . When I was living in my home state of Michigan developing my love of college sports as part of my school newspaper staff my knowledge of Tx Tech didn't extend much past Michael Crabtree's catch and their quirky coach.

But since moving to Texas I've learned a lot more. I've enjoyed following and, yes, defending them from all the virtue-signaling hypocrites who have attacked them over pulling an SEC and getting an injunction to sidetrack NCAA ineligibility. I'll go to my grave believing that if Sorsby had chosen LSU over TT we'd have heard a lot less about it and Sorsby would be suiting up this fall in Baton Rouge.

A big part of the difference is the SEC supports it's own. They've had seemingly countless injunctions in that league yet those schools don't openly criticize each other. They may hate each other behind closed doors, but if that's the case we'll never hear about it in public.

The Big 12, on the other hand, had bitter coaches and athletic directors who couldn't wait to find someone in the media to talk about internal meetings about TT and their outrage that TT would dare consider playing it's $5M portal QB after a judge made him eligible.

And now we're finding out more and more about Cincinnati doing EXACTLY what the others were accusing TT of wanting to do -- knowingly playing a QB who gambled on his own team.

Except Cincy tried to sweep it under the carpet despite being notified in 2024 according to USA Today and Sorsby's agent. Yet there is no outrage for the Bearkats from TCU's Sonny Dykes, or Kansas State's foul-mouthed Gene Taylor, or any of the others who were so outraged at TT. And ever the hypocrite, Cincy even had the gall to vote for sanctioning TT.

There's some indication that behind the scenes only Oklahoma State was supporting TT for doing what 99% of the other universities in the country would do under the same circumstances. That makes sense to me because at the end of the day TT and OSU are probably the most valuable athletic departments and the natural candidates to fill the void left by Texas and Oklahoma.

So why is the Big 12 so petty compared to the SEC when it comes to having each other's backs? My guess is the Big 12 is full of have-nots who are extremely insecure at the thought of anyone becoming the 900 lbs gorilla that TT has quickly become. In the SEC, much like the Big Ten, there are a bunch of gorillas so everyone is pretty secure.

But the Big 12 only has TT and not much else unless OSU returns to prominence or BYU continues breaking through on a regular basis. And the insecurity that comes from that fact means articles like the Iowa State write-up below are never going to defend the league heavyweight. They're just going to be petty, virtue-signaling, and bitter.

I guess the moral of the story is that have-nots seem to only be happy with other have-nots.

[Jody S. Laughter∴ @Lubbockist]

The Sorsby stuff has been "taked" to death but here is mine after sitting in it for a few days. Barring a change on the legal side, he will be a member of the team in the fall. That's not up to TTU. If he is on the team, he will likely (per contract) earn his full revenue share/NIL money. TTU has no choice in that matter either.

The only question then for Texas Tech, is if he plays or if he sits on the bench and earns a paycheck.

So what the rest of the country is asking Texas Tech to do, is to pay him to practice, to be on the team, and not play football. This, they say, will protect the integrity of the game.

But what did he do that supposedly compromised the integrity of the game in the first place? He placed bets...from the bench.

So what we're really talking about isn't protecting game integrity in 2026 at all. We're talking about punishment. Punishing Sorsby for 2022.

Punishing Sorsby by paying him $5 million to not play. That's not much of a punishment if you ask me.

When you tear away all the bluster and moralizing, what they are really asking is for Texas Tech - and Texas Tech alone - to be punished.

Not Sorsby, not Indiana where it happened, not Cincinnati who played him after. Texas Tech alone.

The rest of college football would love nothing more, and would be laughing the entire time.

Our program should evaluate his mental and physical fitness, and his compliance with the order put in place. We should make sure that, all else being equal, he is our best option before going out on that field. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

But we should not let bullying, threats, and emotion (from those who already wished us harm) to have any bearing on that decision whatsoever.

Strip it all away and they are really asking for Texas Tech to be the only party in this scandal to be punished. The only party who, by any objective measure, has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Do that, and the outrage from the peanut gallery will not turn to adulation, or even silence. It will turn to mockery.

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@Orangebloodsatx @RPTexan Is there a player on Ut's roster now that was caught gambling? Yes or no?

[Fabo @fabomad1979]

@CodyC64 Where is all the outrage for uT who have a player on their roster who was outed as a gambler also? Or for any other institution that plays a player with integrity issues. Why are yall going after Tech so bad on this issue but turn a blind eye when these issues come up elsewhere?

[Herd w/Colin Cowherd @TheHerd]

"When Georgia goes high moral ground, watch out. That's a football program that should have its own Autobahn. Give me a break... This is a kid that did something idiotic, which is what kids do."

@colincowherd weighs in on Brendan Sorsby being ruled eligible in 2026

[Taylor Stockton @tStocktonTTU]

The least surprising news of all time is that Texas Tech is vilified because of a judge’s ruling in the Sorsby case.

The only issue is Texas Tech did not step one toe out of line in the entire process.

[RC Maxfield @RCMB323]

MASSIVE news for Texas Tech Football

[Slander University @TheSlanderU]

Sark:“We could go undefeated with our 2s and 3s playing the schedule”.

McGuire: play us with your ones we will pay the buyouts

Texas Fans: wait wait wait *insert excuses why we can’t play*

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

Justification gets you out of Egypt, but sanctification gets Egypt out of you.

[Ebele @SirEbele]

BROTHER: Did you know that Apostle Peter was the first pope and head of the church?

EBELE: No, I did not. Peter was one of the foundational apostles; but there was no pope.

BROTHER: Ha! It's in your Bible!

EBELE: Where?

BROTHER: Open to Matthew 16:18 and read it to me

EBELE: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

And so?

BROTHER: Didn't you just read Jesus Christ say He will build His church on the rock called Peter? He chose him as the first pope.

EBELE: No, my brother; the Lord Jesus was not referring to Peter as the Rock upon which the church is built. Peter had just received a revelation of Christ being the Son of God in the preceding 2 verses - Matthew 16:16-17. That's what Jesus was referring to in verse 18. I can show you in another place. Please open to Ephesians 2:19-20

BROTHER: "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone"

And so?

EBELE: Did you not see that the stone referred to was Christ Himself, which is what was revealed to Peter in Matthew 16? That was what Jesus was referring to.

BROTHER: Noooooo. It is very clear what Jesus said "I say to you that you are Peter. Peter means rock. And on this rock (Peter), I will build my church. Peter was the first head of the church.

EBELE: Okay, okay, since you don't want to consider the plain truth I just showed you in Ephesians. Maybe you think Paul who wrote Ephesians was jealous of Peter and didn't want to say he was the head.....let's go back to that Matthew 16

BROTHER: Okay?

EBELE: So in Matthew 16:18 Jesus called Peter the rock on which He will build His church, right?

BROTHER: Yes!

EBELE: Okay scroll down in the same chapter and read verse 23. Matthew 16:23.

BROTHER: But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

Okay?

EBELE: Who did Jesus call rock in verse 18, making him the first head?

BROTHER: Peter!

EBELE: And who did Jesus call Satan in verse 23?

BROTHER: Hmmm.....Pe.......ter

EBELE: So who was the first Satan of the church?

BROTHER: Hmmm! Okay? Aaaah! Ehm! I see. Wow!

EBELE: May you continue to see. Good night.

BROTHER: Thank you, my brother. Good night.

--------------------------------
MORAL OF THE DRAMA: Isokuso can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another - Peter Obi, 1441AD.

May God bless the reader

[Dr. Maalouf ‏ @realMaalouf]

Reminder: the Crusades were a response to over 400 years of Islamic aggression against Christians and Europe.

632: Muhammad dies.

635: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Damascus.

636: Muslims conquer the Christian city of Antioch.

637: Muslims conquer the Holy Land.

639: Muslims conquer the first Christian country Armenia.

641: Muslims conquer the Coptic Christian country of Egypt.

650: Muslim armies reach southern Italy and Cyprus, taking thousands of captives as "slaves" and "concubines."

711: Muslims invade Spain, and by 715, they have overrun most of it.

717: Muslims besiege Constantinople but are repelled.

730: Muslims invade France, only to be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours.

792: The ruler of Al-Andalus calls for the invasion of France, and Muslim armies are assembled to attack it again, but they are repelled.

827: Muslims invade Sicily and Italy, persecuting monks. Sicily remains under Islamic rule until 1092.

846: Muslims invade Rome and force the Pope to pay tribute.

848: A third invasion of France occurs, and they are repelled for the third time.

909: Muslims occupy Sardinia.

937: The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is burned down by Muslims, and more churches in Jerusalem are attacked.

1009: Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem.

1012: Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Christians.

1071: Muslim Turks attack the Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1094: Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos asks Western Christendom for help against Muslim Turkish invasions.

1095: Pope Urban II finally declares the First Crusade.

[Big Hen @BigHen49]

Wreck em