Sunday, January 04, 2009

Religulous Review: Johnny Robertson admits to "multimedia" schizoid sham... with a clip show?!

(With kindest regards to Bill Maher for coming up with such a great new word that I couldn't help but apply it to another bunch of loonies that he would probably laugh at as well...)

In late November this blog reported on local cult leader Johnny Robertson - of what I call "the Church of Christ in Name Only" - employing the services of what he referred to on his live TV show as "Religious Review Multimedia Group", and Robertson heavily implied that whoever "Religious Review Multimedia Group" was, that they were an independent outfit covering matters of faith.

Except the whole thing was something Robertson made up. And in the footage that he aired, that's his own teenage son who's now following in his old man's footsteps with the hidden cameras and "in yo face" confrontations.

"Religious Review Multimedia Group" was, as is so often with Johnny Robertson and which has been documented on this blog many time before, an outrageous lie.

By the way, at least one person has privately told me that for accusing one church of child pornography on live television, that Johnny Robertson "should be shot" and that for allowing such slander to be broadcast unquestioned and without research, that WGSR general manager Charles Roark should have his license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission. I can certainly see some merit to that. About the FCC anyway...

(Why did you let Robertson say such a thing anyway, huh Roark? Or do you simply not care what Johnny Robertson says? Is it true that Johnny Robertson owns your miserable excuse for a soul and that you don't have the backbone to stand up for journalistic integrity? Sadly, many of us know the answer to that question.)

So there is no such thing as "Religious Review Multimedia Group". Or there used to not be anyhoo... because as I noted last week it now appears that other folks are taking the initiative against the damage that Johnny Robertson and his second cousin/toady James Oldfield have been doing to north-central North Carolina and southside Virginia. I don't know who's behind it but the Religious Review blog is off to a fine start. And in its latest post, Religious Review (The Blog) provides hard evidence for Robertson and Oldfield's chicanery...

What are they trying to prove?

Apparently, Johnny Robertson and his second cousin James Oldfield are feeling a bit guilty about the recent public backlash against their misleading use of something called "Religious Review". Because tonight, on "What Does the Bible Say", they showed an old rerun of "What Does the Bible Say" with a banner below reading "Vintage RELIGIOUS REVIEW".

How much criticism must they have gotten for their dishonesty to devote an entire program to trying to prove that they aren't doing anything wrong? Why is this "Vintage RELIGIOUS REVIEW"? They were calling the program "What Does the Bible Say" even back then, not "Religious Review". More dishonesty!

Maybe the threat of legal action scared them into trying to prove themselves. Nice try, boys, but you didn't prove anything with this.

"What Does the Bible Say"...
effective computer usage since 2002
Yes folks, believe it or not: Johnny Robertson tried to hoodwink everyone into believing that "Religious Review" has been around since 2002... with a clip show!

(I didn't see that show personally, but I did manage to catch and chuckle at the "All Calls Special" that Oldfield had running in place of his usual show this past Thursday night.)

I've talked with a lot of people who have been following the Johnny Robertson cult for longer than I've been paying attention to it, and to the best of their knowledge "Religious Review Multimedia Group" didn't exist until the past couple of months. But in a bizarre statement that he made on the Answering Church of Christ blog, Robertson said the following (in his typical bewildering ranting style)...

keep up Walking in (not) love all anyone has to do is go back for the last 6 years and see that I have been doing RR for a long time

Religious Review was hated in Martinsville long before you fellows caught on to my work.Thanks for the advertising though

Can this man not make up his mind as to whether or not he is or is not affiliated with "Religious Review Multimedia Group"? First Robertson makes out as if they are some serious Web 2.0 outfit independent of him. Now, he says that he is "Religious Review Multimedia Group" and in an act of apparent time travel, he claims that they have existed for at least six years.

That is either a lie of omission, or a leap of insanity.

Either way, "walkinginlove" asked this of Robertson on the same thread...

As for the RR site, I have no idea who did it or why but I do know that you are falsely representing yourself and that is a lie Johnny, now in your belief system you may think it is ok, but do liars inherit the kingdom of heaven?
How indeed, Johnny Robertson? Can you honestly say that your behavior is reflective of a Christ-like life, or that this is the kind of attitude that is going to be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven?

I don't doubt that Robertson betrayed what his real motivation is with what he said a few days ago...

"we are revealing the evil behaviors of you all"
If you are not a member of Robertson's cult, you are "evil" and damned to Hell. That's what it boils down to.

But what is now becoming common knowledge is that Johnny Robertson is more like a "useful idiot" for the real cult leaders (like Shawn Paden) in and around east Texas. They're the ones (no matter how much Robertson claims otherwise) who keep sending the thousands of dollars for Robertson and his second cousin James Oldfield (gotta love how fast that tidbit has become well known too!) to be operating on the only television station that had management desperate enough to sell airtime and sell out to anyone with the cash. Without that, Robertson would have been a former imprisoned felon who, as one commenter on this blog put it, has "abandonment issues" from how bad his father treated him and his mother.

Johnny Robertson, you're from Texas. Maybe you've heard of the saying there: "You've got to rise above your raisin'." Those are wise words and you'd do well to heed them. Instead of running around the area acting like a liar and lunatic and ruining the lives of your kid and whoever else.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are we having to rely on blogger Chris Knight to uncover the truth about Johnny Robertson and the Church of Christ? Everything he has reported has checked out. Didn't Charles Roark care about who he was going into business with? I just think it makes Star News looks like losers when an unpaid citizen journalist is doing the work that the station should have done years ago. If it weren't for The Knight Shift we still would not know all that we do now about Robertson Oldfield and Roark

Anonymous said...

Why do they need a newer graphic telling us that its RELIGIOUS REVIEW when it should have been on the original footage? Just put the original airdate is enough.

Walkinginlove said...

Hi Chris, one thing I would like to point out in JR's recent maneuvers to prove this Religious Review is not him lying, It is one thing to have a program that reviews religious issues, and it's another thing to hide your true organization from those you are talking to. That appears to be a recent step he has taken, I said he was slowly walking deeper into the darkness and this old show compared to the recent use of his son and falsely claiming it's independence from his CoC following seems to prove my statement.

It is unfortunate that he is unwilling to address his childhood anger and hurt, but instead has replaced the gun he used with a Bible as a weapon to use to control and force people to walk with him in lock step.

One only needs to study the simple matter of Food served to Idols and you will quickly realize that if you take the scripture in it's historical order of writing and not the order it has been placed in the Bible by the original Catholic Church (thought I would add that since JR's view of them is also tainted) you will find that Paul taught that food was unimportant and that you could eat it, the council led by Peter wrote a document saying don't eat it.

Now food served to idols seems to be a small matter to you and I, but to a practicing Jew back then it was a life and death issue and to eat of that food was to sin against God. Thus Paul told the Gentiles who really didn't see it as an issue to eat except they be with another believer who says it is a sin, then they should not eat to avoid causing the other to stumble.

Causing a stumbling block to another believer is an important concept in the Bible and one I feel has not been fully understood by people in modern times. It is really why Peter told the Jews in Acts 2 to be baptized because to them they saw it as a transition from killers of Christ to Priest's of Christ. It made the transition into the Kingdom easy for a Jewish believer because it was something the Lavitical Priests did before contacting or touching the atonement sacrifice and was clearly rooted in Judaism.

Thus it removed a stumbling block from them to make it easy for them to transition into the Kingdom. They on the other hand tried to later force gentiles to be circumcised and the council had to act to remove the stumbling block from the gentiles the Jewish believers were trying to place on them.

And I believe it is why Paul seems to focus more on belief then on water baptism when addressing gentiles, yet to maintain unity gentiles were baptized and it was important to maintain unity in the body so that others would not stumble. I can only imagine what would have happened if Paul had not baptized Gentiles, the Jewish followers who had already lost the outward sign of circumcision would have gone off the deep end since there was no way to prove you belonged to Christ in their minds, because they were used to an external object as proof of their belief. Baptism was the replacement for circumcision as that external proof of belonging. Cornelius story in acts shows us a God who is dealing with all the zealotry of Jewish believers to make sure that the Gentiles were allowed in and also at the same time that Peter had a defense for the allowance of unclean people into the new order of things. Had Peter simply done as in Acts 2, the Jewish believers would have revolted against him. But God made sure it was going to be seen as "God's Fault" the gentiles had the Holy Ghost as the real seal of their salvation and the Jewish believers had to blame God for allowing this to happen and not Peter. Thus the impossible transition of the Gentiles into the Kingdom as equals with the Jews was done without people being killed over it. It was all about stumbling blocks really! Had it not happened the way it did the Jewish believers would have stumbled. Cornelius was clearly already acceptable to God before Peter arrives, but Peter had to come to build the bridge officially for the Jewish believers to keep them from stumbling, they still grumbled about it, but God did it so they had to accept it.

In modern days everyone has taken up their rights as more important then causing others to stumble, if my rights effect you and cause you to stumble, it's to bad and you need to grow up and understand the Bible as I do etc., this is hardly an attitude we should follow.

Unfortunately we have carried this to a point that we condemn others who do not believe and follow scripture as we do, we do not live with their faults and weakness but seems to now want to force conformity through fear of hell.

Somehow reading the accounts of Christ and what he said, that does not seem to me to be the way of real truth in love and the results were clearly declared by JR on his most recent show. I believe he said that 300 people had been baptized per Acts 2:38 but only 75 were in his body, with the Danville and Reidsville group lets call it 100 people still actively attending. That is a l0ss rate of 2 out of 3!!! And I know that some of that loss was not only people leaving his church but also leaving the faith all together. That is so very sad that people will end up in hell because of "the my way or the hell way" control tactics and attitude.

WIL

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Religulous Review: Johnny Robertson admits to "multimedia" schizoid sham... with a clip show?!

(With kindest regards to Bill Maher for coming up with such a great new word that I couldn't help but apply it to another bunch of loonies that he would probably laugh at as well...)

In late November this blog reported on local cult leader Johnny Robertson - of what I call "the Church of Christ in Name Only" - employing the services of what he referred to on his live TV show as "Religious Review Multimedia Group", and Robertson heavily implied that whoever "Religious Review Multimedia Group" was, that they were an independent outfit covering matters of faith.

Except the whole thing was something Robertson made up. And in the footage that he aired, that's his own teenage son who's now following in his old man's footsteps with the hidden cameras and "in yo face" confrontations.

"Religious Review Multimedia Group" was, as is so often with Johnny Robertson and which has been documented on this blog many time before, an outrageous lie.

By the way, at least one person has privately told me that for accusing one church of child pornography on live television, that Johnny Robertson "should be shot" and that for allowing such slander to be broadcast unquestioned and without research, that WGSR general manager Charles Roark should have his license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission. I can certainly see some merit to that. About the FCC anyway...

(Why did you let Robertson say such a thing anyway, huh Roark? Or do you simply not care what Johnny Robertson says? Is it true that Johnny Robertson owns your miserable excuse for a soul and that you don't have the backbone to stand up for journalistic integrity? Sadly, many of us know the answer to that question.)

So there is no such thing as "Religious Review Multimedia Group". Or there used to not be anyhoo... because as I noted last week it now appears that other folks are taking the initiative against the damage that Johnny Robertson and his second cousin/toady James Oldfield have been doing to north-central North Carolina and southside Virginia. I don't know who's behind it but the Religious Review blog is off to a fine start. And in its latest post, Religious Review (The Blog) provides hard evidence for Robertson and Oldfield's chicanery...

What are they trying to prove?

Apparently, Johnny Robertson and his second cousin James Oldfield are feeling a bit guilty about the recent public backlash against their misleading use of something called "Religious Review". Because tonight, on "What Does the Bible Say", they showed an old rerun of "What Does the Bible Say" with a banner below reading "Vintage RELIGIOUS REVIEW".

How much criticism must they have gotten for their dishonesty to devote an entire program to trying to prove that they aren't doing anything wrong? Why is this "Vintage RELIGIOUS REVIEW"? They were calling the program "What Does the Bible Say" even back then, not "Religious Review". More dishonesty!

Maybe the threat of legal action scared them into trying to prove themselves. Nice try, boys, but you didn't prove anything with this.

"What Does the Bible Say"...
effective computer usage since 2002
Yes folks, believe it or not: Johnny Robertson tried to hoodwink everyone into believing that "Religious Review" has been around since 2002... with a clip show!

(I didn't see that show personally, but I did manage to catch and chuckle at the "All Calls Special" that Oldfield had running in place of his usual show this past Thursday night.)

I've talked with a lot of people who have been following the Johnny Robertson cult for longer than I've been paying attention to it, and to the best of their knowledge "Religious Review Multimedia Group" didn't exist until the past couple of months. But in a bizarre statement that he made on the Answering Church of Christ blog, Robertson said the following (in his typical bewildering ranting style)...

keep up Walking in (not) love all anyone has to do is go back for the last 6 years and see that I have been doing RR for a long time

Religious Review was hated in Martinsville long before you fellows caught on to my work.Thanks for the advertising though

Can this man not make up his mind as to whether or not he is or is not affiliated with "Religious Review Multimedia Group"? First Robertson makes out as if they are some serious Web 2.0 outfit independent of him. Now, he says that he is "Religious Review Multimedia Group" and in an act of apparent time travel, he claims that they have existed for at least six years.

That is either a lie of omission, or a leap of insanity.

Either way, "walkinginlove" asked this of Robertson on the same thread...

As for the RR site, I have no idea who did it or why but I do know that you are falsely representing yourself and that is a lie Johnny, now in your belief system you may think it is ok, but do liars inherit the kingdom of heaven?
How indeed, Johnny Robertson? Can you honestly say that your behavior is reflective of a Christ-like life, or that this is the kind of attitude that is going to be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven?

I don't doubt that Robertson betrayed what his real motivation is with what he said a few days ago...

"we are revealing the evil behaviors of you all"
If you are not a member of Robertson's cult, you are "evil" and damned to Hell. That's what it boils down to.

But what is now becoming common knowledge is that Johnny Robertson is more like a "useful idiot" for the real cult leaders (like Shawn Paden) in and around east Texas. They're the ones (no matter how much Robertson claims otherwise) who keep sending the thousands of dollars for Robertson and his second cousin James Oldfield (gotta love how fast that tidbit has become well known too!) to be operating on the only television station that had management desperate enough to sell airtime and sell out to anyone with the cash. Without that, Robertson would have been a former imprisoned felon who, as one commenter on this blog put it, has "abandonment issues" from how bad his father treated him and his mother.

Johnny Robertson, you're from Texas. Maybe you've heard of the saying there: "You've got to rise above your raisin'." Those are wise words and you'd do well to heed them. Instead of running around the area acting like a liar and lunatic and ruining the lives of your kid and whoever else.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why are we having to rely on blogger Chris Knight to uncover the truth about Johnny Robertson and the Church of Christ? Everything he has reported has checked out. Didn't Charles Roark care about who he was going into business with? I just think it makes Star News looks like losers when an unpaid citizen journalist is doing the work that the station should have done years ago. If it weren't for The Knight Shift we still would not know all that we do now about Robertson Oldfield and Roark

Anonymous said...

Why do they need a newer graphic telling us that its RELIGIOUS REVIEW when it should have been on the original footage? Just put the original airdate is enough.

Walkinginlove said...

Hi Chris, one thing I would like to point out in JR's recent maneuvers to prove this Religious Review is not him lying, It is one thing to have a program that reviews religious issues, and it's another thing to hide your true organization from those you are talking to. That appears to be a recent step he has taken, I said he was slowly walking deeper into the darkness and this old show compared to the recent use of his son and falsely claiming it's independence from his CoC following seems to prove my statement.

It is unfortunate that he is unwilling to address his childhood anger and hurt, but instead has replaced the gun he used with a Bible as a weapon to use to control and force people to walk with him in lock step.

One only needs to study the simple matter of Food served to Idols and you will quickly realize that if you take the scripture in it's historical order of writing and not the order it has been placed in the Bible by the original Catholic Church (thought I would add that since JR's view of them is also tainted) you will find that Paul taught that food was unimportant and that you could eat it, the council led by Peter wrote a document saying don't eat it.

Now food served to idols seems to be a small matter to you and I, but to a practicing Jew back then it was a life and death issue and to eat of that food was to sin against God. Thus Paul told the Gentiles who really didn't see it as an issue to eat except they be with another believer who says it is a sin, then they should not eat to avoid causing the other to stumble.

Causing a stumbling block to another believer is an important concept in the Bible and one I feel has not been fully understood by people in modern times. It is really why Peter told the Jews in Acts 2 to be baptized because to them they saw it as a transition from killers of Christ to Priest's of Christ. It made the transition into the Kingdom easy for a Jewish believer because it was something the Lavitical Priests did before contacting or touching the atonement sacrifice and was clearly rooted in Judaism.

Thus it removed a stumbling block from them to make it easy for them to transition into the Kingdom. They on the other hand tried to later force gentiles to be circumcised and the council had to act to remove the stumbling block from the gentiles the Jewish believers were trying to place on them.

And I believe it is why Paul seems to focus more on belief then on water baptism when addressing gentiles, yet to maintain unity gentiles were baptized and it was important to maintain unity in the body so that others would not stumble. I can only imagine what would have happened if Paul had not baptized Gentiles, the Jewish followers who had already lost the outward sign of circumcision would have gone off the deep end since there was no way to prove you belonged to Christ in their minds, because they were used to an external object as proof of their belief. Baptism was the replacement for circumcision as that external proof of belonging. Cornelius story in acts shows us a God who is dealing with all the zealotry of Jewish believers to make sure that the Gentiles were allowed in and also at the same time that Peter had a defense for the allowance of unclean people into the new order of things. Had Peter simply done as in Acts 2, the Jewish believers would have revolted against him. But God made sure it was going to be seen as "God's Fault" the gentiles had the Holy Ghost as the real seal of their salvation and the Jewish believers had to blame God for allowing this to happen and not Peter. Thus the impossible transition of the Gentiles into the Kingdom as equals with the Jews was done without people being killed over it. It was all about stumbling blocks really! Had it not happened the way it did the Jewish believers would have stumbled. Cornelius was clearly already acceptable to God before Peter arrives, but Peter had to come to build the bridge officially for the Jewish believers to keep them from stumbling, they still grumbled about it, but God did it so they had to accept it.

In modern days everyone has taken up their rights as more important then causing others to stumble, if my rights effect you and cause you to stumble, it's to bad and you need to grow up and understand the Bible as I do etc., this is hardly an attitude we should follow.

Unfortunately we have carried this to a point that we condemn others who do not believe and follow scripture as we do, we do not live with their faults and weakness but seems to now want to force conformity through fear of hell.

Somehow reading the accounts of Christ and what he said, that does not seem to me to be the way of real truth in love and the results were clearly declared by JR on his most recent show. I believe he said that 300 people had been baptized per Acts 2:38 but only 75 were in his body, with the Danville and Reidsville group lets call it 100 people still actively attending. That is a l0ss rate of 2 out of 3!!! And I know that some of that loss was not only people leaving his church but also leaving the faith all together. That is so very sad that people will end up in hell because of "the my way or the hell way" control tactics and attitude.

WIL