Monday, May 17, 2010

Johnny Robertson demands retraction from this blog

Word has reached me from a few places that on last night's installment of What Does the Bible Say? (or as many people call it "What Does Johnny Robertson Say?" and "The Martinsville Taliban Show") on WGSR, that local cult leader Johnny Robertson called me out by name for stating that his son Micah Robertson was convicted on May 7th in Danville General District Court on the charge of trespassing stemming from an incident on February 28th at Westover Baptist Church in Danville, Virginia.

It seems that Johnny Robertson - leader of the area cult calling itself "Church of Christ" (I now call them the "Sons of Hell", see Matthew 23:15 and some are now calling them "Stalkers for Jesus") believes I am being irresponsible as a journalist. It is his contention that Micah Robertson was not actually "convicted", but has had his judgment deferred for one year. At which time his transgression will be removed from the records. Which, I suppose I could note that this could be a parable about the quality of mercy that Robertson and his goons could stand to learn much from were they not so hard-hearted. But I digress...

If this isn't a conviction, then what is it? Micah Robertson certainly wasn't found innocent. And one doesn't find himself in the position of possibly having a conviction made permanent hanging over one's head like the proverbial Sword of Damocles unless that person did do something he shouldn't have been doing (in this case, harassing and intimidating a church congregation).

(I could also mention how Johnny Robertson apparently has nothing to say about my asking "Is it biblical or typical practice among your number for one of you to knowingly and consistently give huge amounts of God's money to an avowed atheist, bisexual habitual thief?". Guess he doesn't want to go there, aye?)

Anyhoo, Johnny Robertson has insisted that I should do a retraction.

He's not going to get it.

But, I am willing to demonstrate that I more than a fair journalist. Certainly more than Johnny Robertson and his "Religious Review" sham are...

The judge in the case has said that he'll take this off Micah Robertson's record if he behaves himself for the next year. I believe it is our duty to hold Micah Robertson to that.

If Micah Noel Robertson completely refrains from harassing churches for the next full year, and refrains from even MENTIONING on television any church other than his own Church of Christ for the same amount of time, and refrains from mentioning the name of the pastor or minister of any other congregation for the same amount of time, then I will print a retraction on The Knight Shift.

This means more than Micah Robertson having to keep his nose clean for the next 365 days. It also means that he's going to have to demonstrate nothing but his own doctrine for one full year.

Do I think he can do it? I doubt that he can. Martinsville Church of Christ, Danville Church of Christ and the rest of the local cult calling itself "Church of Christ" (which has nothing to do with the mainstream Churches of Christ) has proven time and again that it doesn't HAVE a real doctrine to call its own. All these loons have are a few handpicked verses of scripture backing up a doctrine that has never existed to begin with, and their unbridled hatred of everyone who doesn't belong to their cult.

In short: Micah Robertson has no purpose without being the bully that his father is grooming him to be. It's thuggery in the name of Christ and that is all that these people have. It can no more be expected of them to abandon and let die their hatred than it could be expected the government to stop wasting money.

But, I am giving Micah Robertson a chance. He can choose to take it, or not.

Until then, and possibly indefinitely, there will be no retraction because Micah Robertson was found guilty in court, and that should stand as warning to many other people about what he and his cult are capable of doing.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good luck with that. You'll have better luck asking Fred Phelps and his inbred church to stop with the God Hates Fags. Like them the Robertsons are addicted to hate.

Walkinginlove said...

Now Chris if they start actually talking about what they believe they let the cat out of the bag.

I am still waiting for Mr. J. Robertson to explain how Jesus lied to the woman at the well when Jesus called the 5 men all husband, seems that according to Johnny that only husband number one was a real husband and the rest were not. Jesus says otherwise and John's claim that jesus said what he said because the woman did not believe the book of Ezra 10 was real scripture is laughable. Considering she was living with man number 6, and having to go to the well during mid-day to avoid the other women I would doubt that any scripture was really on her mind!

Or we could get into Heath Opposing God over Deut 18 and the longer ending of Mark. Or their lack of Bible Chapter and Verse in not allowing anyone but their select group to take communion during services. It seems they have no lack of "righteous judgments" no matter how umbilical they are!

But that brings up another can of worms in how they expect to avoid Judgment of their salvation over any errors in practice since they have judged the world on the same level. Do they believe God was kidding about judgment as we judge others?

Chris Knight said...

Walkinginlove,
The past several days it's been like God has shown me more reasons than I can possibly count why Johnny Robertson's so-called "Church of Christ" is doctrinally wrong at best and not of Christ at all, at worst.

First of all, NOWHERE in scripture does it say that those who are not baptized with water will go to Hell. Johnny, Micah, James, Mark, and the rest of their lot cannot show us this at all.

Oh sure, they'll go to Mark 16:16, but there are two issues with that which the Robertson cult is too frightened to acknowledge. The first is that there is much evidence that 16:16 is a later addition to the Book of Mark. And even if it is legitimate, Jesus still does not teach that a lack of water baptism will condemn a person.

So the Robertson cult is claiming that Jesus taught something, when He clearly did not.

Secondly, Acts 2:38. Which is a favorite verse of the Robertson cult because they love to harp on Peter teaching that baptism is "for the remission of your sins". Per their very limited mentality, the Robertson cult is insisting that it's the water which does the work of removing sin... which is impossible! That point is reinforced in Peter's next recorded sermon, in Acts 3:19: Peter doesn't mention baptism at all. And then in Acts 10:43 Peter uses the word "remission" again. But, get this: he says "To Him all the Prophets witness that, through His Name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sin."

I would also note that 1 Peter 3:21 is the last time in the New Testament that baptism is referenced. It's stark clear from there on out that damnation comes from outright rejection of Christ. Seems that if having not baptism is enough to sentence one to an eternity in the lake of fire, that such would have been clearly noted in the Book of Revelation... but it's not.

(continued...)

Chris Knight said...

But here's the biggest thing in my mind about what's wrong with Johnny Robertson and his followers: they are making Jesus out to be, literally, a double-minded person and worse than a liar.

Robertson and his minions harp on the church after the crucifiction. They like to insist that Martinsville Church of Christ and Robertson's other Churches of Christ are "the church that you read about in the Bible". And they take it to such a wild extreme that they ignore pretty much everything that Jesus did and taught before His death.

Case in point: Luke 18:13. Johnny Robertson loves to brag that he'll give a thousand dollars to anyone who can prove that the "sinner's prayer" is biblical. Well, right there in Luke 18 we have the tax collector who cries out to God for mercy and Jesus says that he went home justified before God.

Johnny Robertson will say and has said that this verse proves nothing. Why? Because the tax collector was crying out to God before the institution of the "Church of Christ".

If that is the case, then why did Jesus even bother to share that parable with His disciples to begin with? If we are to believe cult leader Johnny Robertson, then this parable and all others that Christ taught are utterly worthless.

Other things that I have been led to discover...

Nowhere is it taught in scripture that those outside "the church of Christ" are damned to Hell. Seriously. This is something that Robertson and his fellow scoundrels have inferred and continue to insist upon by playing on the ignorance of others. If Robertson and his Sons of Hell can point to but one verse in the Bible which explicitly states that a person in anything other than "the church of Christ" is damned, then I for one would like for them to show it to us.

Robertson and his cult demand that a "pattern" be followed. That being: "hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized". This pattern appears nowhere in scripture, in that order. Robertson and his minions have taken these instructions from many different places throughout the New Testament and assembled them as they see fit, and then demand rigid adherence to it.

I'm gonna have to run for now (got some bid'ness out and about this morning) but those are the bigger thoughts that readily come to mind about how wrong these people are.

Walkinginlove said...

Interesting points Chris! They claim to be the same Church that originated in Acts and are somehow the keepers of the complete truth and they are the only true followers of the pattern and all others are false prophets or if they differ on small matters like the Holy Spirit's indwelling they are erring brothers?!?!?! At least according to Heath and assuming they have not changed positions yet again.

You will notice that Robertson no longer uses the defense of the Thief on the Cross as being in the Old Testament? They were exposed as speaking falsely when the Bible clearly showed that the veil that seporated the High Priest from God was torn the moment of Jesus death. This signaled the beginning of the New Covenant and thus the Thief dies clearly under the New Covenant and not the Old but they were sure they were right!

So in 2000 years nobody on the planet noticed the veil was torn, not even the original Apostles?!?!?! The very fact that they are modifying their defenses proves without a doubt that they are falsely claiming a relationship to that original Church! As you say they are in name only!

As you will see over time as holes are poked in their defenses they will in fact modify their defenses, they are more gnostic then they are the church of Acts and I fully understand why the Catholic Church leadership were tempted to alter Mathew 28:19 to include baptism in the trinity, the pressure they were facing with the gnostics over God the Father being Evil and Jesus as the good God, little did they know that they were sowing the seeds that would divide the body.

You see there is no record of the trinity baptism ever being done in Acts, and this begs the question how is it that Jesus told them to do something and the Apostles ignored it? The clear answer is Jesus never told them to do it. The original text for Mathew 28:19 did not include the trinity and did not include baptism.

The original text as quoted by Eusebius said simply "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you"

As you may know 1 John 5:7-8 was also changed, what amazes me is the churches official stance that all is well and everything in the English version is perfect while even John himself admits to Easter being an addition and a replacement for passover.

So the amazing thing is that John discounts the 28:19 formula as a valid baptism and at the same time claims it to be the same as Acts 2:38, talk about double speak!

So based on two scriptures that are not in the original text Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 JR and company have taken a stand that all are lost based on false text! I just pray that God would show mercy towards them and not have to judge them as they have judged others, because since they have cast all except them into hell, it will only take one who was cast to not go to hell for them to end up there since they also have not kept things perfectly and are adding to scripture!

Anonymous said...

Chunky Roark on his Buzz show had a caller asking about Johnny's money. Chunky said Johnny pays 500 dollars an hour and Chunky accused the caller of accusing Johnny of stealing the money. So Chunky Roark is worried about accusations against his biggest sponsor but Chunky himself accused that church of being full of "perverts" just on Johnny's say so??? He is such a bastard.

Chris Knight said...

Didn't see that, but it doesn't really surprise me if true (and I've no reason to doubt that it is).

The two words we'll never hear come out of the mouth of Charles Roark: "No, Johnny."

It's always "Yes Johnny! Yes Johnny! Yes Johnny!"

And I remember well when Roark, on his own volition per Robertson's prodding, said that First Christian in Kernersville was "full of perverts".

If he wishes to contest that, he's more than welcome to do so. But as it is, this blog is gonna be a much more permanent chronicle of the misdeeds of Charles Roark and Johnny Robertson than will be the fleeting attention span of what is probably, at most, a few dozen viewers.

I'm plenty content to let those who come here, judge for themselves about the Sons of Hell and their digital gigolo.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of bastards does Judge Stillwell know that Micah often calls viewers bastards on his live tv show?

Anonymous said...

Charles didn't ask the Westover Baptist leadership to come onto Star News to present their side of the story. It was all Johnny and Micah's side. Then Charles was following Johnny out of the courtroom as Johnny harassed the Westover ministers. Can we say bias in journalism? That's right Charles Roark is a tabloid sleaze artist not a real journalist.

Anonymous said...

It's confusing to me why these churches seem to sit back and let Johnny Robertson and WGSR continue with their accusations such as the person commented "full of perverts" and don't mention it in court.
This comment was made when Johnny showed those girls from the Kernersville church dancing in ballerina outfits claiming he saw panties. That church let him get by with that. It seems this would be a better reason to take someone to court than trespassing. The guy at Westover Babtist said to be a minister of the young people. It seems this would be a perfect reason not to want Johnny and his gang in their church as a means of protecting their children from this type of thing.
Charles Roark and WGSR seemed to be worshiped by the leaders in Rockingham County. They watch this and evidently like it. The mayor said they put the "R" in the street for WGSR and Charles never misses the chance to say that's his "R".

Chris Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

As a father of two girls, I would vote you not guilty.

Chris Knight said...

I'm deleting my earlier comment today, and rephrasing it slightly...

I can't speak for the churches in question, but I cannot help but believe that the reason they didn't pursue anything through legal channels was because they do care about their young people, and wouldn't want to subject them to the obvious circus atmosphere of a trial.

But I can say this: that I did see the original high-resolution video. And Johnny Robertson is a sick, sick man for claiming that these young ladies were showing "panties".

And Charles Roark is a sick, sick man for following Robertson's lead in claiming that the church was "full of perverts".

Personally - and I know this is gonna draw me some flack but I'm gonna say it anyway - if anybody had said that about my daughter on live television, I would have shot them down like the dogs they are. And I would happily let a jury of my peers judge me in court for it.

(Robertson and Roark can read into that what they may.)

That may not be the most apparently "Christian" sentiment, but it would certainly be the justifiable actions of a loving parent.

I think that a commercial television station has allowed this kind of thing to consistently happen, between its general manager and its biggest-paying client, says much about its lack of responsibility, of ethics and of professionalism.

By the way, Johnny Robertson: why are you giving so much of your church's money to a multiple-convicted chronic kleptomaniac and bisexual?

Anonymous said...

I believe that when Johnny Robertson put those big blue circles on the girls in the areas that he did that someone, not knowing the source, might easily think that man was telling the truth.

That was the first time I have ever seen a television station or any books for that matter show things covered up in that fashion when IT WAS NOT THE TRUTH.

I also think the "obvious circus atmosphere" would be directed toward Johnny Robertson and show once and for all what this man is capable of saying and doing.

Johnny Robertson is always as he calls it exposing other preachers for the way they get their money. Has Johnny Robertson ever said "WHO" exactly is giving their group their money how much each of them are paid. He once said his daughter was his secretary does she get paid. Does his wife have a position in the business.

I thought people when they went to a church for the first time went there to see if they would be interested in what is being preached there and if they want to be a part of it. If not visit somewhere else. These guys are not interested in being a part of any of these churches and has said all the people in all of these churches are going to hell. They say they are going there to "INVESTIGATE" the churches. I think they should be made to get a license to investigate before they are allowed to investigate any place.

Chris Knight said...

There's no such thing as a license to investigate, unless one is trying to be a paid private investigator.

There is such a thing as ethics in journalism, however. And we can and should call out irresponsible behavior and biased reporting when we see it.

Be of good cheer. In due time, the entire world will see what is going on, and certain individuals' names will be rendered mud forevermore amen.

Until then, I and others are content to persevere and shrug off their petty arrows.

You do raise a very good question though: is Robertson's family on the church's payroll? Could it be that he and they are guilty of the very thing that Robertson and his fellow stalkers accuse many other congregations of on a regular basis?

It's a valid question.

Anonymous said...

"Private Investigator" seems to be what Johnny and the other guys are doing and they are getting paid to do it and considering no one else does this sort of thing it does seem private. I do accept statement I'm sure you are smarter about and know more about that than I do.

"Ethics in journalism"
Considering the things that are broadcast on WGSR I think ethics has became a thing of the past.

Considering Johnny Robertson is allowed to what he calls "exposed" everything the other preachers are doing and how much money they are getting he should tell us who signs his paycheck, how much money goes to his family members, how much it costs when he goes back to Texas and other places, where he stays, etc. He is always talking about how he doesn't have much and buys his suits at the Goodwill/Salvation store. I think Johnny said he had horses in Texas. If so how much is the upkeep for a horse.

Chris Knight said...

To a certain person attempting to comment on this blog:

I know who you are. News on this blog is more reliable than yours ever was.

Now go and cheat on your wife some more with your loverboy.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Johnny Robertson demands retraction from this blog

Word has reached me from a few places that on last night's installment of What Does the Bible Say? (or as many people call it "What Does Johnny Robertson Say?" and "The Martinsville Taliban Show") on WGSR, that local cult leader Johnny Robertson called me out by name for stating that his son Micah Robertson was convicted on May 7th in Danville General District Court on the charge of trespassing stemming from an incident on February 28th at Westover Baptist Church in Danville, Virginia.

It seems that Johnny Robertson - leader of the area cult calling itself "Church of Christ" (I now call them the "Sons of Hell", see Matthew 23:15 and some are now calling them "Stalkers for Jesus") believes I am being irresponsible as a journalist. It is his contention that Micah Robertson was not actually "convicted", but has had his judgment deferred for one year. At which time his transgression will be removed from the records. Which, I suppose I could note that this could be a parable about the quality of mercy that Robertson and his goons could stand to learn much from were they not so hard-hearted. But I digress...

If this isn't a conviction, then what is it? Micah Robertson certainly wasn't found innocent. And one doesn't find himself in the position of possibly having a conviction made permanent hanging over one's head like the proverbial Sword of Damocles unless that person did do something he shouldn't have been doing (in this case, harassing and intimidating a church congregation).

(I could also mention how Johnny Robertson apparently has nothing to say about my asking "Is it biblical or typical practice among your number for one of you to knowingly and consistently give huge amounts of God's money to an avowed atheist, bisexual habitual thief?". Guess he doesn't want to go there, aye?)

Anyhoo, Johnny Robertson has insisted that I should do a retraction.

He's not going to get it.

But, I am willing to demonstrate that I more than a fair journalist. Certainly more than Johnny Robertson and his "Religious Review" sham are...

The judge in the case has said that he'll take this off Micah Robertson's record if he behaves himself for the next year. I believe it is our duty to hold Micah Robertson to that.

If Micah Noel Robertson completely refrains from harassing churches for the next full year, and refrains from even MENTIONING on television any church other than his own Church of Christ for the same amount of time, and refrains from mentioning the name of the pastor or minister of any other congregation for the same amount of time, then I will print a retraction on The Knight Shift.

This means more than Micah Robertson having to keep his nose clean for the next 365 days. It also means that he's going to have to demonstrate nothing but his own doctrine for one full year.

Do I think he can do it? I doubt that he can. Martinsville Church of Christ, Danville Church of Christ and the rest of the local cult calling itself "Church of Christ" (which has nothing to do with the mainstream Churches of Christ) has proven time and again that it doesn't HAVE a real doctrine to call its own. All these loons have are a few handpicked verses of scripture backing up a doctrine that has never existed to begin with, and their unbridled hatred of everyone who doesn't belong to their cult.

In short: Micah Robertson has no purpose without being the bully that his father is grooming him to be. It's thuggery in the name of Christ and that is all that these people have. It can no more be expected of them to abandon and let die their hatred than it could be expected the government to stop wasting money.

But, I am giving Micah Robertson a chance. He can choose to take it, or not.

Until then, and possibly indefinitely, there will be no retraction because Micah Robertson was found guilty in court, and that should stand as warning to many other people about what he and his cult are capable of doing.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good luck with that. You'll have better luck asking Fred Phelps and his inbred church to stop with the God Hates Fags. Like them the Robertsons are addicted to hate.

Walkinginlove said...

Now Chris if they start actually talking about what they believe they let the cat out of the bag.

I am still waiting for Mr. J. Robertson to explain how Jesus lied to the woman at the well when Jesus called the 5 men all husband, seems that according to Johnny that only husband number one was a real husband and the rest were not. Jesus says otherwise and John's claim that jesus said what he said because the woman did not believe the book of Ezra 10 was real scripture is laughable. Considering she was living with man number 6, and having to go to the well during mid-day to avoid the other women I would doubt that any scripture was really on her mind!

Or we could get into Heath Opposing God over Deut 18 and the longer ending of Mark. Or their lack of Bible Chapter and Verse in not allowing anyone but their select group to take communion during services. It seems they have no lack of "righteous judgments" no matter how umbilical they are!

But that brings up another can of worms in how they expect to avoid Judgment of their salvation over any errors in practice since they have judged the world on the same level. Do they believe God was kidding about judgment as we judge others?

Chris Knight said...

Walkinginlove,
The past several days it's been like God has shown me more reasons than I can possibly count why Johnny Robertson's so-called "Church of Christ" is doctrinally wrong at best and not of Christ at all, at worst.

First of all, NOWHERE in scripture does it say that those who are not baptized with water will go to Hell. Johnny, Micah, James, Mark, and the rest of their lot cannot show us this at all.

Oh sure, they'll go to Mark 16:16, but there are two issues with that which the Robertson cult is too frightened to acknowledge. The first is that there is much evidence that 16:16 is a later addition to the Book of Mark. And even if it is legitimate, Jesus still does not teach that a lack of water baptism will condemn a person.

So the Robertson cult is claiming that Jesus taught something, when He clearly did not.

Secondly, Acts 2:38. Which is a favorite verse of the Robertson cult because they love to harp on Peter teaching that baptism is "for the remission of your sins". Per their very limited mentality, the Robertson cult is insisting that it's the water which does the work of removing sin... which is impossible! That point is reinforced in Peter's next recorded sermon, in Acts 3:19: Peter doesn't mention baptism at all. And then in Acts 10:43 Peter uses the word "remission" again. But, get this: he says "To Him all the Prophets witness that, through His Name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sin."

I would also note that 1 Peter 3:21 is the last time in the New Testament that baptism is referenced. It's stark clear from there on out that damnation comes from outright rejection of Christ. Seems that if having not baptism is enough to sentence one to an eternity in the lake of fire, that such would have been clearly noted in the Book of Revelation... but it's not.

(continued...)

Chris Knight said...

But here's the biggest thing in my mind about what's wrong with Johnny Robertson and his followers: they are making Jesus out to be, literally, a double-minded person and worse than a liar.

Robertson and his minions harp on the church after the crucifiction. They like to insist that Martinsville Church of Christ and Robertson's other Churches of Christ are "the church that you read about in the Bible". And they take it to such a wild extreme that they ignore pretty much everything that Jesus did and taught before His death.

Case in point: Luke 18:13. Johnny Robertson loves to brag that he'll give a thousand dollars to anyone who can prove that the "sinner's prayer" is biblical. Well, right there in Luke 18 we have the tax collector who cries out to God for mercy and Jesus says that he went home justified before God.

Johnny Robertson will say and has said that this verse proves nothing. Why? Because the tax collector was crying out to God before the institution of the "Church of Christ".

If that is the case, then why did Jesus even bother to share that parable with His disciples to begin with? If we are to believe cult leader Johnny Robertson, then this parable and all others that Christ taught are utterly worthless.

Other things that I have been led to discover...

Nowhere is it taught in scripture that those outside "the church of Christ" are damned to Hell. Seriously. This is something that Robertson and his fellow scoundrels have inferred and continue to insist upon by playing on the ignorance of others. If Robertson and his Sons of Hell can point to but one verse in the Bible which explicitly states that a person in anything other than "the church of Christ" is damned, then I for one would like for them to show it to us.

Robertson and his cult demand that a "pattern" be followed. That being: "hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized". This pattern appears nowhere in scripture, in that order. Robertson and his minions have taken these instructions from many different places throughout the New Testament and assembled them as they see fit, and then demand rigid adherence to it.

I'm gonna have to run for now (got some bid'ness out and about this morning) but those are the bigger thoughts that readily come to mind about how wrong these people are.

Walkinginlove said...

Interesting points Chris! They claim to be the same Church that originated in Acts and are somehow the keepers of the complete truth and they are the only true followers of the pattern and all others are false prophets or if they differ on small matters like the Holy Spirit's indwelling they are erring brothers?!?!?! At least according to Heath and assuming they have not changed positions yet again.

You will notice that Robertson no longer uses the defense of the Thief on the Cross as being in the Old Testament? They were exposed as speaking falsely when the Bible clearly showed that the veil that seporated the High Priest from God was torn the moment of Jesus death. This signaled the beginning of the New Covenant and thus the Thief dies clearly under the New Covenant and not the Old but they were sure they were right!

So in 2000 years nobody on the planet noticed the veil was torn, not even the original Apostles?!?!?! The very fact that they are modifying their defenses proves without a doubt that they are falsely claiming a relationship to that original Church! As you say they are in name only!

As you will see over time as holes are poked in their defenses they will in fact modify their defenses, they are more gnostic then they are the church of Acts and I fully understand why the Catholic Church leadership were tempted to alter Mathew 28:19 to include baptism in the trinity, the pressure they were facing with the gnostics over God the Father being Evil and Jesus as the good God, little did they know that they were sowing the seeds that would divide the body.

You see there is no record of the trinity baptism ever being done in Acts, and this begs the question how is it that Jesus told them to do something and the Apostles ignored it? The clear answer is Jesus never told them to do it. The original text for Mathew 28:19 did not include the trinity and did not include baptism.

The original text as quoted by Eusebius said simply "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you"

As you may know 1 John 5:7-8 was also changed, what amazes me is the churches official stance that all is well and everything in the English version is perfect while even John himself admits to Easter being an addition and a replacement for passover.

So the amazing thing is that John discounts the 28:19 formula as a valid baptism and at the same time claims it to be the same as Acts 2:38, talk about double speak!

So based on two scriptures that are not in the original text Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 JR and company have taken a stand that all are lost based on false text! I just pray that God would show mercy towards them and not have to judge them as they have judged others, because since they have cast all except them into hell, it will only take one who was cast to not go to hell for them to end up there since they also have not kept things perfectly and are adding to scripture!

Anonymous said...

Chunky Roark on his Buzz show had a caller asking about Johnny's money. Chunky said Johnny pays 500 dollars an hour and Chunky accused the caller of accusing Johnny of stealing the money. So Chunky Roark is worried about accusations against his biggest sponsor but Chunky himself accused that church of being full of "perverts" just on Johnny's say so??? He is such a bastard.

Chris Knight said...

Didn't see that, but it doesn't really surprise me if true (and I've no reason to doubt that it is).

The two words we'll never hear come out of the mouth of Charles Roark: "No, Johnny."

It's always "Yes Johnny! Yes Johnny! Yes Johnny!"

And I remember well when Roark, on his own volition per Robertson's prodding, said that First Christian in Kernersville was "full of perverts".

If he wishes to contest that, he's more than welcome to do so. But as it is, this blog is gonna be a much more permanent chronicle of the misdeeds of Charles Roark and Johnny Robertson than will be the fleeting attention span of what is probably, at most, a few dozen viewers.

I'm plenty content to let those who come here, judge for themselves about the Sons of Hell and their digital gigolo.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of bastards does Judge Stillwell know that Micah often calls viewers bastards on his live tv show?

Anonymous said...

Charles didn't ask the Westover Baptist leadership to come onto Star News to present their side of the story. It was all Johnny and Micah's side. Then Charles was following Johnny out of the courtroom as Johnny harassed the Westover ministers. Can we say bias in journalism? That's right Charles Roark is a tabloid sleaze artist not a real journalist.

Anonymous said...

It's confusing to me why these churches seem to sit back and let Johnny Robertson and WGSR continue with their accusations such as the person commented "full of perverts" and don't mention it in court.
This comment was made when Johnny showed those girls from the Kernersville church dancing in ballerina outfits claiming he saw panties. That church let him get by with that. It seems this would be a better reason to take someone to court than trespassing. The guy at Westover Babtist said to be a minister of the young people. It seems this would be a perfect reason not to want Johnny and his gang in their church as a means of protecting their children from this type of thing.
Charles Roark and WGSR seemed to be worshiped by the leaders in Rockingham County. They watch this and evidently like it. The mayor said they put the "R" in the street for WGSR and Charles never misses the chance to say that's his "R".

Chris Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

As a father of two girls, I would vote you not guilty.

Chris Knight said...

I'm deleting my earlier comment today, and rephrasing it slightly...

I can't speak for the churches in question, but I cannot help but believe that the reason they didn't pursue anything through legal channels was because they do care about their young people, and wouldn't want to subject them to the obvious circus atmosphere of a trial.

But I can say this: that I did see the original high-resolution video. And Johnny Robertson is a sick, sick man for claiming that these young ladies were showing "panties".

And Charles Roark is a sick, sick man for following Robertson's lead in claiming that the church was "full of perverts".

Personally - and I know this is gonna draw me some flack but I'm gonna say it anyway - if anybody had said that about my daughter on live television, I would have shot them down like the dogs they are. And I would happily let a jury of my peers judge me in court for it.

(Robertson and Roark can read into that what they may.)

That may not be the most apparently "Christian" sentiment, but it would certainly be the justifiable actions of a loving parent.

I think that a commercial television station has allowed this kind of thing to consistently happen, between its general manager and its biggest-paying client, says much about its lack of responsibility, of ethics and of professionalism.

By the way, Johnny Robertson: why are you giving so much of your church's money to a multiple-convicted chronic kleptomaniac and bisexual?

Anonymous said...

I believe that when Johnny Robertson put those big blue circles on the girls in the areas that he did that someone, not knowing the source, might easily think that man was telling the truth.

That was the first time I have ever seen a television station or any books for that matter show things covered up in that fashion when IT WAS NOT THE TRUTH.

I also think the "obvious circus atmosphere" would be directed toward Johnny Robertson and show once and for all what this man is capable of saying and doing.

Johnny Robertson is always as he calls it exposing other preachers for the way they get their money. Has Johnny Robertson ever said "WHO" exactly is giving their group their money how much each of them are paid. He once said his daughter was his secretary does she get paid. Does his wife have a position in the business.

I thought people when they went to a church for the first time went there to see if they would be interested in what is being preached there and if they want to be a part of it. If not visit somewhere else. These guys are not interested in being a part of any of these churches and has said all the people in all of these churches are going to hell. They say they are going there to "INVESTIGATE" the churches. I think they should be made to get a license to investigate before they are allowed to investigate any place.

Chris Knight said...

There's no such thing as a license to investigate, unless one is trying to be a paid private investigator.

There is such a thing as ethics in journalism, however. And we can and should call out irresponsible behavior and biased reporting when we see it.

Be of good cheer. In due time, the entire world will see what is going on, and certain individuals' names will be rendered mud forevermore amen.

Until then, I and others are content to persevere and shrug off their petty arrows.

You do raise a very good question though: is Robertson's family on the church's payroll? Could it be that he and they are guilty of the very thing that Robertson and his fellow stalkers accuse many other congregations of on a regular basis?

It's a valid question.

Anonymous said...

"Private Investigator" seems to be what Johnny and the other guys are doing and they are getting paid to do it and considering no one else does this sort of thing it does seem private. I do accept statement I'm sure you are smarter about and know more about that than I do.

"Ethics in journalism"
Considering the things that are broadcast on WGSR I think ethics has became a thing of the past.

Considering Johnny Robertson is allowed to what he calls "exposed" everything the other preachers are doing and how much money they are getting he should tell us who signs his paycheck, how much money goes to his family members, how much it costs when he goes back to Texas and other places, where he stays, etc. He is always talking about how he doesn't have much and buys his suits at the Goodwill/Salvation store. I think Johnny said he had horses in Texas. If so how much is the upkeep for a horse.

Chris Knight said...

To a certain person attempting to comment on this blog:

I know who you are. News on this blog is more reliable than yours ever was.

Now go and cheat on your wife some more with your loverboy.