The Gospel of Barnabas

Image result for the gospel of barnabas

Bandung, August 8th 2017

11:35 am

Hi readers,

I’m very happy because I just finished reading The Gospel of Barnabas. This book becomes a controversy to many religious people, especially Christian, and also including Islam since tens or hundred years ago. Before I tell you the history about The Gospel of Barnabas, you need to know that I am a Christian. As a Christian, I’m very interested to read and learn about any other Bible or Gospel or any Books about Theology. Not many Christians do like I do, or interested what I like. I love to study a lot, and I hate when people hate each other because of their different religion or belief. That’s why I think we need to study and analyze anything and get many perspective from books, or priests, or people; so we won’t judge anything. I read The Gospel of Barnabas not because I’m out from the Christian doctrine, and also not because I’m interested with Islam. I read this book because I want to read by my own, analyze by my own, and learn by own without any purpose to leave my faith. I’m still a Christian anyway, and I still love Jesus as God.

Right now I want to write about some verses that I want to share to you. There are 222 verses in The Gospel of Barnabas, and happily I have read all of those verses. Yeaayyyy…! Woohoo…lol

Well, let’s begin…

“He alone hath no equal. He hath had no beginning, nor will he ever have an end, but to everything hath he given a beginning and to everything shall he give an end. He hath no father nor mother; he hath no sons, nor brethren, nor companions. And because God hath no body, therefore he eateth not, sleepeth not,dieth not, walketh not, moveth not, but abideth eternally without human similitude, for that he is incorporeal, uncompounded, immaterial, of the most simple substance” (Gospel of Barnabas 17).

This verse shows us that Gospel of Barnabas doesn’t represent trinity; between God, Son, and Holy Spirit. Barnabas wrote that God has no father nor mother, He has no sons; so it’s different from Christian doctrine that says God has Jesus as His Son, or Jesus is the Son of God. And Jesus as a God also has father and mother on earth, Joseph and virgin Mary.

Barnabas wrote God has no body, not eat, not sleep, not dead, not walk, and not move; from this verse Barnabas shows us that the real God is someone who can’t be seen phisically by human. Barnabas believed in God, but didn’t believe if Jesus is God, because Jesus had physic body, He ate, He slept, and He died.

“Believe me, for verily I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac” (Gospel of Barnabas 43).

“Then spake God, saying to Abraham: ‘Take thy son, thy firstborn Ishmael, and come up the mountain to sacrifice him’. How is Isaac firstborn, if when Isaac was born Ishmael was seven years old” (Gospel of Barnabas 44).

Christians believe that Abraham sacrificed Isaac not Ishmael. This verse refers to Quran which says that Abraham sacrificed Ishmael. Barnabas wrote: when Isaac was born, Ishmael was seven years old. So it was impossible if Abraham sacrificed a baby born Isaac. Because of that, Barnabas believed that Ishmael was the choosen son to be sacrificed by Abraham.

Barnabas wrote God made the promise to Ishmael, not to Isaac; but in Christian Bible is written that Isaac who got the promise from God, not Ishmael.

“And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him” (Genesis 17:19).

“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation” (Genesis 17:20).

“But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year” (Genesis 17:21).

So what was written by Barnabas is refering to Quran and different from the Bible or Christian doctrine.

Barnabas also wrote that there were 3 holy books which written by Moses, David, and the book that God gave to Mohammed.

“Then Moses shall say ‘The book that thou gavest to me is the first‘, and David shall say: ‘The book that thou gavest to me is the second‘; but the book that thou gavest me said truly that I am thy servant; and that book confesseth that which thy messenger affirmeth’. Then shall the messenger of God speak, and shall say: ‘Thus saith the book that thou gavest me, O Lord’. Next shall God give life to all the elect, who shall cry out: ‘O Mohammed, be mindful of us!’ at whose cries pity shall awake in the messenger of God, and he shall consider what he ought to do, fearing for their salvation” (Gospel of Barnabas 54-55).

Barnabas didn’t mention Holy Bible as the book from God who was written by God’s messengers. Barnabas wrote there were only 3 messengers of God; Moses, David, and Mohammed. Barnabas didn’t mention any of Jesus’ Apostles.

Barnabas mentioned Mohammed by name for several times, Barnabas believed that Mohammed is the last messenger of God and also the last Prophet. In any gospels on Bible never mention Mohammed by name, because Mohammed lived hundred years after the death of Jesus. Now I’m a bit confused because how did Barnabas, who lived in Jesus era; knew about Mohammed who not live yet in that era. Was this a prophecy from Barnabas? Did Jesus tell Barnabas about this prophecy? Did God say to Jesus or Barnabas about this prophecy? Because Barnabas mentioned the exact name of Mohammed.

O Mohammed, God be with thee, and may he make me worthy to untie thy shoelatchet, for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God”. And having said this, Jesus rendered his thanks to God” (Gospel of Barnabas 44).

Another shocking story for Christians from The Gospel of Barnabas is the story when Jesus would be caught by the Chief Priest and the Pharisees in Gethsemane. Barnabas wrote exactly the same story like the Quran that Jesus was taken by the holy angels in Gethsamane to the third heaven by the command of God before the Chief Priest and the Pharisees arrived and caught Him. Then God made Judas Iscariot to be like Jesus, so the Chief Priest and the Pharisees believed and sure that Judas was Jesus, because Judas’ look, Judas’ voice and everything very similar to Jesus.

“Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel, Michael, Rafel, and Uriel, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looketh toward the South. They bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore” (Gospel of Barnabas 215).

“Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: ‘Thou, Lord, art our Master; hast thou now forgotten us?” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

“And he, smiling, said: ‘Now are ye foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!’. And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

“The soldiers took Judas and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus; and the soldiers, mocking him, said: ‘Sir, fear not, for we are come to make thee king of Israel, and we have bound thee because we know that thou dost refuse the kingdom’. Judas answered: ‘Now have ye lost your senses! Ye are come to take Jesus of Nazareth, with arms and lanterns as (against) a robber; and ye have bound me that have guided you, to make me king!” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

Judas answered: ‘I have told you that I am Judas Iscariot, who promised to give into your hands Jesus the Nazarene; and ye, by what art I know not, are beside yourselves, for ye will have it by every means that I am Jesus’. The high priest answered: ‘O perverse seducer, thou hast deceived all Israel, beginning from Galilee even unto Jesrusalem here, with thy doctrine and false miracles: And now thinkest thou to flee the merited punishment that befitteth thee by feigning to be mad?” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

Judas answered: ‘Sir, believe me, if thou put me to death, thou shalt do a great wrong, for thou shalt slay an innocent person; seeing that I am Judas Iscariot, and not Jesus, who is a magician, and by his art hath so transformed me’. When he heard this the governor marvelled greatly, so that he sought to set him at liberty. The governor therefore went out, and smiling said: ‘In the one case, at least, this man is not worthy of death, but rather of compassion” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

“Verily I say that the voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the doctrine of Jesus, believing that Jesus had been a false prophet” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

Please take a deep breath dear Christians. This verse is very essential. We still can’t sure or can’t agree yet about this. Just make it a new knowledge for us, as Christians; that there is another doctrine or perspective which says that what Christians serve and pray for thousand years until now is Judas Iscariot, not Jesus. But we also have right to keep our faith and believed that Jesus had died on the cross for our sins.

“For Jesus had said that he should not die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he should be taken away from the world” (Gospel of Barnabas 216).

Barnabas wrote that Jesus had not died yet, He still alive and live in the third of Heaven until now, and He will come again to the world at the end.

“For certain evil men, pretending to be disciples, preached that Jesus died and rose not again. Others preached that he really died, but rose again. Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul decieved. But we, as much as I have written, that they may be saved in the last day of God’s judgement. Amen. (End of Bible)” (Gospel of Barnabas 222).

In his last verse, Barnabas wrote there were many false doctrine who are believed by people until now. At the end sentence Barnabas let us to see what will happen at the end of the world or in the last day of God’s Judgement.

Well well, dear readers. Please, I’m telling you: what we have read, what we have learnt, everything are knowledges. Don’t take it wrong, don’t take it emotionally, don’t take it as the truth before you feel sure about it, don’t lose your faith.

Even I have read this, doesn’t mean I should believe this. Even I believe this, doesn’t mean I should leave Christianity. Please be wise and smile…. ^_^

Anyway, after you read my own written up there ^ ; I also need to share to you the history about The Gospel of Barnabas. Who is Barnabas? Why did he write this Gospel? Where & when did people find this Gospel? and so on.

Image result for gospel of barnabas
The original appearance of The Gospel of Barnabas

The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, which claims to be by the biblical Barnabas. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish. The Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.

This work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahadah (chapter 39). It is strongly anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet, and not the Son of God, while Paul is called “the deceived.” Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven, while Judas Iscariot the traitor was crucified in his place. These beliefs—in particular, that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified—conform to or resemble Islamic teachings which say that Jesus is a major prophet who did not die on the cross but was taken alive by angels to God.

Other passages, however, conflict with the teachings of the Qur’an—as, for instance, in the account of the Nativity, where Mary is said to have given birth to Jesus without pain or as in Jesus’s ministry, where he permits the drinking of wine and enjoins monogamy—though the Qur’an allegedly acknowledges each prophet had a set of their own laws that might differ in some aspects from each other. Other examples include that hell will only be for the committers of the seven deadly sins (Barnabas: 4–44/135), anyone who refuses to be circumcised will not enter paradise (Barnabas 17/23), that there are 9 heavens (Barnabas 3/105).

If the Gospel of Barnabas is seen as an attempted synthesis of elements from both Christianity and Islam, then 16th- and 17th-century parallels can be suggested in Morisco and anti-Trinitarian writings. According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification:

And having said this, Jesus smote his face with both his hands, and then smote the ground with his head. And having raised his head, he said: “Cursed be every one who shall insert into my sayings that I am the son of God” (Gospel of Barnabas 53).

This conforms entirely with Muslim belief, according to which Jesus is just a human and a prophet. According to some ahadith, he will come back to earth in the future and declare to the world that he is “a Servant of God”.

Image result for gospel of barnabas
The article about The Gospel of Barnabas on London Daily Mail in 2012

Why has the Christian world hidden the Gospel of Barnabas? This illuminating book proves that Jesus was a true Prophet of Islam, proving that he never claimed to be the Son of God and that he predicted the coming of our Prophet by name.

It is the only reliable record of the life of Jesus Christ and that we have deliberately concealed it because it shows Jesus to have been the prophet the Qur’an declares him to have been. If you should express surprise to hear that such a book actually exists they will press home their contentions all the more, declaring that your ignorance of the book is a sure sign that the Church has forcefully suppressed its teaching.

The History of the Barnabas Gospel

In his Preliminary Discourse to his translation of the Qur’an first published in 1734 AD, George Sale first drew the attention of the Christian world generally to a Gospel attributed to St. Barnabas which, he said, records the life of Jesus in a manner very different from that found in the four Biblical Gospels but corresponding to the traditions of Muhammad in the Qur’an. He mentioned a Spanish translation in the possession of the Moriscoes in Africa (which no longer exists apart from a few known extracts), and an Italian translation in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy. From this edition Lonsdale and Laura Ragg published a translation into English which was published in 1907 with various notes, proving Sale’s contention that it is a forgery.

Since the beginning of this century, when an Arabic translation became well known in the Islamic world, Muslim scholars and writers have made much of the book. In 1973 the Raggs’ English translation of the Gospel was first published in the Muslim world. Since then approximately 100.000 copies have been printed in Pakistan. It has caused considerable excitement as it appears to finally prove, from Christian origins, that Jesus was the ‘Isa of Islam and that Muhammad was indeed to be the final messenger of God to all mankind.

Much of its teaching is repetitive of Biblical teaching, though adapted to suit Islamic preferences. For example, when ten lepers were healed on one occasion by Jesus, the only one to return was a Samaritan who fell at his feet, giving him thanks (Luke 17.16). The Gospel of Barnabas conveniently states that he was an Ishmaelite. The rest of its teaching, however, consists of legendary and fanciful stories and forged teachings of Jesus of no historical value at all. Let us consider a few of its typical Islamic teachings.

Islamic Teachings of the Barnabas Gospel

  1. Jesus Denied that he was the Son of God

The Gospel of Barnabas repeats the incident where Jesus asked his disciples, firstly, who the multitudes thought he was and, secondly, who they thought he was (Matthew 16.13-20). When Peter answered that he was the Son of God, Jesus responded that he was blessed because his Father in heaven had revealed this to him. In the Gospel of Barnabas, however, while Peter is correctly recorded as declaring that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, the answer of Jesus to him was totally different.

Jesus is supposed to have declared to Peter “Begone and depart from me, because thou art the devil and seekest to cause me offence!” He then is reputed to have told all his disciples to beware because “I have won from God a great curse against those who believe this” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 70).

  1. Judas was Crucified in Place of Jesus

The Muslim doctrine that Jesus was taken alive from the earth just before he was due to be arrested while someone else was made to look like him and was crucified in his place is repeated in this Gospel, only it specifically makes the victim Judas Iscariot. It was only some centuries after Muhammad that the Muslim world first taught this theory, invented to justify the crucifixion of a bystander who might otherwise have seemed to be an innocent substitute.

The Gospel of Barnabas teaches that when Judas arrived with soldiers to arrest Jesus, God sent four angels to take Jesus out of the world into the third heaven while Judas “was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus” that Barnabas and the other disciples believed him to actually be Jesus (Gospel of Barnabas, para 216). Judas was duly crucified in his place.

  1. Jesus Predicted the Coming of Muhammad by Name

In many places Jesus is said to have declared the coming of Muhammad by name, as in this statement made after he said he would first have to endure the infamy that he had been crucified:

“But when Mohammed shall come, the sacred messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 112).

These are some of the central Islamic features of the Gospel of Barnabas where its teaching contradicts the contents of the four Biblical Gospels. Numerous other Islamic influences can be found throughout the book, such as the claim that the covenantal promise to Abraham was made in Ishmael and not Isaac (para 191), explaining the Muslim conviction that this is the only true Gospel.

Medieval Origins Proving it is a Forgery

There were numerous apocryphal Gospels, Epistles and other forgeries similar in style to the authentic New Testament scriptures that were rejected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and in the subsequent Decretum Gelasianum of which one was titled the Gospel of Barnabas. No historical record whatsoever exists to show what sort of book it was or what it taught. From a study of the contents of this Islamic Gospel so strongly promoted in the Muslim world, however, it soon becomes obvious that these two cannot possibly be the same works. There are many proofs that the latter is a 16th century forgery.

Medieval Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas

It is not hard to prove to Muslims that this Gospel was first compiled many centuries after the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. Three of examples of medieval influences will be considered here.

  1. The Centenary Year of Jubilee

One of the laws Moses gave to the people of Israel was that a jubilee year was to observed twice every century when slaves would be liberated and debts cancelled. God ordained it in these words:

“A jubilee year shall that fiftieth year be to you” (Leviticus 25:11).

About 1300 AD Pope Boniface the Eighth decreed that the jubilee year should be reintroduced but that it should only be held at the turn of each century, that is, once every hundred years. After his death, however, Pope Clemens the Sixth decreed that the jubilee year should revert to every fifty years following the Biblical decree and there was talk thereafter of reducing it further. In the Gospel of Barnabas this saying is attributed to Jesus:

“And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now cometh every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 82).

The anachronism is obvious – the author of the Gospel of Barnabas could only have spoken of the jubilee year coming every hundred years if he knew of the decree of Pope Boniface. Whoever wrote this Gospel makes Jesus repeat a proclamation which was only made at least thirteen centuries after his time! This proves that the Gospel is a forgery of not earlier than the 14th century AD.

  1. Quotations from Dante’s Inferno

Dante was an Italian who lived at about the same time as Pope Boniface. He wrote a well-known classic titled Divina Comedia – the “Divine Comedy”. It was a fantasy about hell, purgatory and heaven according to the beliefs of his time. Many passages in the Gospel of Barnabas show a dependence on his work, one of which is a saying attributed to Jesus of the prophets of old:

“Readily and with gladness they went to their death, so as not to offend against the law of God given by Moses his servant, and go and serve false and lying gods” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 23).

The expression “dei falsi e lugiardi” (false and lying gods) is found elsewhere in the Gospel of Barnabas. Jesus is recorded as again using this phrase (para 78) while Herod is also said by the author to have “adored the false and lying gods” (para 217).

In its actual descriptions of heaven and hell the Gospel of Barnabas follows Dante exactly while contradicting the Qur’an. Jesus is said to have declared to Simon Peter:

“Know ye therefore that hell is one, yet hath seven centres one below another. Hence, even as sin is of seven kinds, for as seven gates of hell hath Satan generated it: so there are seven punishments therein” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 135).

Dante gives precisely this description in the fifth and sixth cantos of his Inferno. Speaking of the heavens the Gospel of Barnabas states that they are nine and that Paradise itself is greater than all of them together (para 178). This again parallels Dante who also speaks of nine heavens with an Empyrean, a tenth heaven above them all.

  1. The Medieval Environment of the Gospel

Other passages from the Gospel show that the author was more at home in the climate and seasons of southern Europe than in the land of Palestine. He makes Jesus speak of how beautiful the world is in summer-time when the harvest and fruit abound (para 169). This is a fair description of Italy in summer but not of Palestine where the rain falls in winter and the fields are parched in summer.

Likewise the Gospel of Barnabas speaks of storing wine in wooden wine-casks (para 152), a common practice in medieval Europe but not in first-century Palestine where wine was stored in skins (Matthew 9.17). Further proof of the author’s ignorance of the geography of Palestine is found in this statement:

“Having arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 20).

In this passage Nazareth is represented as a harbour on the Lake of Galilee. After this Jesus is said to have gone “up to Capernaum”. Every disciple of Jesus would have known that Capernaum was the city on the shores of the lake while Nazareth is up in the hills. Jesus would have gone up from Capernaum to Nazareth, not the other way around as the Gospel of Barnabas has it.

These evidences all prove that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery compiled in southern Europe sometime around the 16th century after Christ. Let us proceed to examine other evidences that discount the authenticity of this book that calls itself a Gospel.

Other Evidences Against its Authenticity

The Gospel of Barnabas must be the true Gospel since it teaches that Jesus was not to be the final messenger of God to mankind but that this honour would be reserved to our holy Prophet Muhammad who he said would follow after him.

There are numerous other evidences against the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas, some of which derive from the very passages where Jesus is said to have foretold the coming of Muhammad. It is very interesting to note that this Gospel makes no mention of John the Baptist – a striking omission, considering the attention given to him as a contemporary prophet to Jesus in the Biblical Gospels. Instead sayings of John are attributed to Jesus, such as “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord’” (John 1.23) which is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of Barnabas together with the whole conversation that surrounds it (para 42). The author of this Gospel conveniently, but very erroneously, makes Jesus say of Muhammad what John actually said of him.

Who is The Messiah?

John the Baptist denied that he was the Messiah when challenged by the Jewish leaders (John 1:20). The Gospel of Barnabas makes Jesus deny the same thing in much the same words:

“Jesus confessed and said the truth: ‘I am not the Messiah … I am indeed sent to the house of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah” (Gospel of Barnabas, paras 42, 82).

Who was to be the coming Messiah, then? Elsewhere the Gospel makes Jesus say “The name of the Messiah is Admirable … God said: Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise … Mohammed is his blessed name” (para 97). Here the author of the Gospel of Barnabas completely overreaches himself for the Qur’an clearly states, no less than eleven times, that Jesus alone is the Messiah. The Bible confirms this too on many occasions (John 4.26, Matthew 16.20).

The title here is Al-Masih, “the Messiah”, and Jesus himself is called Al-Masihu Isa, “the Messiah Jesus”. So the Gospel of Barnabas incontrovertibly contradicts the Qur’an when it declares that Muhammad was to be the Messiah.

What is very interesting here is the discovery that this Gospel not only contradicts the Qur’an but also itself. In the prologue to the book it speaks of “Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ” and states that it is the “true Gospel of Jesus, called Christ”. The author does not seem to have been aware that Messiah and Christ are interchangeable terms, meaning the same thing. The latter derives from the Greek word Christos which is a translation of the original Hebrew word Mashiah.

The Contradictions

There are other contradictions between the Qur’an and the Gospel of Barnabas which cannot be satisfactorily explained. One relates to the birth of Jesus as it is told in each book. The Gospel says this about the moment of his delivery:

“The virgin was surrounded by a light exceeding bright and brought forth her son without pain” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 3).

This statement has no Biblical equivalent but parallels Catholic beliefs of the Middle Ages. It is further evidence that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery composed up to fifteen centuries after the time of Christ.

There is little room here for Muslims to maintain their cherished belief that they have, in the Gospel of Barnabas, an original Gospel which is consistent with the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. It is not surprising that many Muslim scholars have, in recent times, rejected the Gospel as a forgery. Nonetheless there are still many Muslim writers, often well aware of the overwhelming evidences against it, who still promote it as an authentic text.

Another typical contradiction between the two books is found in the statement in the Gospel of Barnabas about the angels of God on the last days before the great Judgment: “The fifteenth day the holy angels shall die, and God alone shall remain alive” (para 53).

Again the Gospel of Barnabas states that on the thirteenth day of the final period before the end, all mankind will die and every living thing on the earth shall perish (para 53) whereas the Qur’an states that men will be alive until the last day, the great Day of Judgment.

The Original Authorship of the Gospel

Barnabas was known to have been one of the great disciples of Jesus. How can you even contemplate trying to discredit a Gospel written by him? If he was one of the twelve, why do you Christians conveniently reject everything he wrote?

One of the great questions about this Gospel is indeed its original authorship. Who wrote it? Although it is obvious that the book is a forgery of relatively recent times it is important nonetheless to prove to Muslims that Barnabas could never have been its author. Throughout the book its author is said to have been one of the twelve disciples of Jesus yet it is well known that the real Barnabas only appears on the scene after the death and resurrection of Jesus and, furthermore, that he only received his name as a result of an incident that took place much later. The evidence is found in the following passage:

“Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:36-37).

It was only when this man Joseph encouraged the early Church by donating the proceeds of the sale of his property to the disciples of Jesus that he was given the surname bar-nabas. Thereafter he is a prominent personality in the record of the initial development of the Church and is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament (Galatians 2:9). He was most certainly not one of the original twelve, however, whose names are all recorded in two of the Gospels (Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 6:14-16). He is not mentioned at all in the four Gospels and the composer of this forgery has, as it were, left his fingerprints on its text by including what is a glaring anachronism. Jesus is said to have called him by name on numerous occasions of which the following passage is an example:

“Jesus answered: ‘Be not sore grieved, Barnabas, for those whom God hath chosen before the creation of the world shall not perish” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 19).

Such an address before Jesus ascended to heaven was impossible if he only received the title some time after the event.

We will never know for certain who actually wrote this Gospel. What we do know is that it most certainly could not have been written by the Apostle Barnabas who was at no time one of the immediate disciples of Jesus. If the Gospel of Barnabas serves any purpose it is perhaps to prove that it is impossible to compose a life of Jesus consistent with the factual evidences of his life and teachings as found in the four true Gospels which at the same time promotes him as a prophet of Islam. The book fails dismally in its attempt to do precisely this.

Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts

Gospel Barnabas expressly repudiates the teaching of Paul that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact even the New Testament records that Paul and Barnabas couldn’t agree. It was because Barnabas taught the ultimate truth about Jesus.

The Gospel of Barnabas begins with a statement that “many, being deceived of Satan, under pretence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus Son of God … among whom Paul also hath been deceived” (para 1). At the very end of the book Paul is again accused of being deceived for the same reason. Muslims latch on to a passage in the Bible where it is recorded that “there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other” (Acts 15.39) to prove that Paul and Barnabas could not agree with each other and claim that this is proof that Barnabas differed with Christianity’s foremost apostle on the major points of Christian doctrine. The aim is to prove that Barnabas rejected these beliefs and wrote his Gospel to correct them.

Barnabas and Paul: Two Close Companions

Anyone reading through Acts 15 will discover that the only point of disagreement between these two men was on whether they should again be accompanied by John Mark on a later journey. Paul did not want him to go with as he had let them down on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). For this reason alone they separated. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus while Paul chose Silas as his future companion (Acts 15:39-40).

All the other evidences in the Book of Acts prove that, far from being an opponent of Paul, Barnabas consistently stood by him and backed his teaching. When Paul was converted through a dramatic vision of Jesus in the sky as he made his way to Damascus, he remained a few days in the city with the other disciples of the Lord and then finally entered the local synagogue, proclaiming Jesus and declaring “He is the Son of God” (Acts 9.20). There can be no doubt, therefore, that right from the time he first became a follower of Jesus Christ Paul declared the heart of the Christian doctrine. From here it is important to know what role Barnabas played in accompanying him on his travels.

  1. Barnabas First Introduced Paul to the Other Apostles

When Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion the other disciples were very afraid of him, knowing his relentless persecution of the early Church. They did not believe that he was a true disciple of Jesus. It is a revelation to discover, in the light of the vehement attacks made on Paul in the Barnabas Gospel, just who it was who commended him to the disciples:

“But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus” (Acts 9:27).

From here on, until their dispute on a personal matter, Paul and Barnabas were constantly together. In fact, as we shall see, the real author of the Gospel of Barnabas could hardly have made a more inappropriate choice for the authorship of his forgery.

  1. Barnabas Sought Paul to help him Teach in Antioch

As soon as the Church in Jerusalem heard that the Church in Antioch was growing well, the Apostles sent Barnabas there to instruct the new disciples in the faith of Jesus. Barnabas, however, decided he could not do this alone. Who did he send for to assist him? No one else but Paul! He went all the way to Tarsus to look for him and, when he found him, he brought him to Antioch (Acts 11.25-26). What follows is significant:

“For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians” (Acts 11:26).

Under the ministry of these two men the believers were first called Christians because Paul and Barnabas taught them the basic truths of what makes Christianity the religion it is today – that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for our sins. These are the very things that the Gospel of “Barnabas” is at such pains to deny. Throughout their travels together Paul took the initiative in preaching the Christian Gospel while Barnabas stood by him, vindicating everything he said. There can be no doubt that Barnabas was not the author of the anti-Paul Gospel attributed to him.

  1. Both Barnabas and Paul Rejected Circumcision

According to the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is recorded as teaching that circumcision is one of the most important acts of religious piety. Both Judaism and Islam to this day faithfully observe the ordinance. Jesus is supposed to have said:

“Leave fear to him that hath not circumcised his foreskin, for he is deprived of paradise” (Gospel of Barnabas, para 23).

It is most ironic to find that the real Barnabas joined Paul in vehemently opposing circumcision as a necessary ritual for salvation:

“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved’. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:1-2).

In one of his Epistles Paul states that, when he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, they took Titus, an uncircumcised Greek believer in Jesus, as a test case. Paul laid before the apostles the Christian Gospel he was preaching – one devoid of the legalistic rituals that characterise Judaism and Islam – to see if they disagreed with him on any point. They not only agreed that Titus should not be circumcised (Galatians 2.1-3) but “gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (v. 9). It does appear that no one was closer to Paul in his preaching of the Christian faith than this man Barnabas. He cannot possibly be the author of the Gospel falsely attributed to him.

Thank you everyone for reading. I love you. ^_^

Naomi Indah Sari


The Gospel of Barnabas

You also can follow my instagram:


or add me as friend on facebook:

Naomi Indah Sari



Buku: Supernova 1 (Kesatria, Putri & Bintang Jatuh), Dee Lestari

Bandung, 6 Agustus 2017


Hi readers, kali ini saya mau share tentang buku yang sangat terkenal dan fenomenal di Indonesia yang ditulis oleh mantan penyanyi zaman saya SD, yaitu Dee Lestari. hehehehe Buku ini adalah serangkaian buku-buku yang diberi nama “Supernova” yang terdiri dari 6 seri. Nah yang mau saya share sekarang adalah buku seri pertama yang berjudul “Kesatria, Putri & Bintang Jatuh”.

Kalau boleh berkomentar dulu, ini bukunya agak sedikit rumit dan membingungkan yah. Saya sampai harus lihat-lihat lagi halaman-halaman berikutnya supaya benar-benar nangkep maksud/ pesan dari buku ini. Saya tertarik mau baca buku ini karena beberapa orang bilang ini bukunya bagus banget dan ditulis dengan sangat cerdas oleh Dee Lestari, sampai-sampai waktu saya search buku ini via online (ceritanya mau beli di toko buku online), ada orang yang mention saya terus semangat banget rekomendasiin buku ini ke saya, katanya “Wajib banget baca kak. Sumpah si Dee pinter banget. Semua ilmu ada di buku supernova”. Ok ok, akhirnya setelah keliling semua toko buku di Jakarta (tempat saya tinggal sebelum pindah ke Bandung) tidak ketemu buku supernova 1 ini atau biasanya disingkat dengan “KPBJ”, dan akhirnya saya memutuskan beli online.

Well, waktu awal saya baca buku KPBJ ini, saya langsung tertarik karena Dee menggunakan pasangan homoseksual sebagai tokoh utama buku ini, yang bernama Dimas & Reuben. Kenapa saya tertarik? Karena di buku ini si Dimas & Reuben diceritakan sebagai pasangan homoseksual yang berintelektual, alias berpendidikan. Ide ini bagus banget untuk membangun citra bahwa homoseksual sama seperti orang normal yang berpendidikan tinggi, cerdas, intelek, kreatif, dan mampu berkarya. Tidak seperti stereotype yang sudah melekat di masyarakat bahwa homoseksual adalah menjijikkan, tidak berpendidikan, tidak bermoral, bahkan phedofil atau psikopat.

Selain itu, sangat menarik karena Dee menulis cerita di dalam cerita. Maksudnya, Dee menciptakan Dimas & Reuben dalam bukunya, lalu Dimas & Reuben menulis juga tentang tokoh-tokoh lain yang diciptakannya dalam tulisannya. Ini sangat menarik walaupun sedikit membingungkan karena setting ceritanya lompat-lompat ke cerita yang berbeda, namun masih saling terkait.

Kenapa Dee dipuji-puji sangat cerdas melalui buku ini, karena buku ini menyajikan istilah-istilah atau membahas teori-teori yang beragam seperti sastra, filsafat, sains, fisika, kimia, matematika, biologi, anatomi, psikologi, dan lain sebagainya. Seakan Dee berusaha menggabungkan semua ilmu tersebut dalam suatu kehidupan manusia, yang memang saling berkaitan satu sama lain.

Dalam buku ini tokoh Reuben mengatakan, “bahwa kebenaran yang utuh baru kamu dapatkan setelah melihat kedua sisi cermin kehidupan. Tidak cuma sebelah. Dan, cermin itu sangat dekat”. Lalu ia memperjelas bahwa cermin tersebut berada di setiap atom tubuh kita sendiri.

Kalau boleh saya mendefinisikan versi saya sendiri, mungkin maksudnya adalah saat kita mau mencari suatu kebenaran jangan hanya melihat dari satu sisi saja, atau satu aspek saja, atau satu paham saja, atau satu ideologi saja, atau satu agama saja, atau satu ide saja, tetapi pelajarilah, analisalah, lihatlah dari dua sisi yang berbeda, analisalah. Dengan demikian kita akan menemukan kebenaran. Jika kita hanya melihat dari sisi kita sendiri, atau melihat yang kita yakini saja, maka kebenaran tersebut tidak akan pernah ditemukan.

Adapula dialog dimana Reuben bercerita pada Dimas bahwa orangtua Reuben sudah mengetahui bahwa dirinya adalah seorang gay, lalu Reuben berkata, “Kalau sampai saya dipanggang di neraka bersama para pemburit seperti nasib Sodom dan Gomorah, mereka (orangtua Reuben) bakal minta ke Yahweh untuk ikut dibakar. Soalnya, kalau saya dianggap produk gagal, berarti mereka juga”.

Wkwkwkwkwkwkwkkwk Dialog ini lucu sekaligus menyindir. Seakan berkata bahwa tidak ada manusia yang merupakan produk gagal, jika seorang manusia adalah heteroseksual, bukan berarti juga dia sempurna. Artinya ya semua manusia diciptakan dengan pribadi yang unik & layak, jika ia terlahir cacat tubuh misalnya, bukan berarti dia produk gagal, dia tetap sempurna. Karena Tuhan pasti adil, ada hal yang kita miliki yang tidak dimiliki oleh orang lain dan begitupun sebaliknya.

Oh iya, tokoh Kesatria, Putri, & Bintang Jatuh adalah tokoh-tokoh yang diciptakan oleh Dimas & Reuben, mereka yang menulis cerita atau novel tentang itu. Diceritakan seorang Kesatria yang jatuh cinta pada seorang putri, namun putri tersebut bukanlah seorang wanita single, namun milik seorang pangeran. Kesatria & Putri sangat sedih & tersiksa karena kenyataannya mereka saling mencintai. Lalu ada tokoh Bintang Jatuh yang diciptakan sebagai seseorang yang harus sepenuhnya mewakili area abu-abu. Teori relativitas berjalan. Manusia yang penuh paradoks. Bukan tokoh antagonis, juga bukan protagonis. Penuh kebajikan, tapi juga penuh kepahitan. Dialah meteor langit setiap orang. Penuh kesan, tapi dengan cepat melesat hilang. Tidak terbendung institusi apa-apa, organisasi manapun, bukan properti siapa-siapa.

Lalu ada dialog di mana Reuben menyebut tentang filosofinya Abraham Maslow yang seorang penemu konsep psikologi transpersonal, yang didasari pada kerangka kerja idealis monistik, yaitu paradigma yang mengatakan bahwa otak dan pikiran berada di realitas yang sama. Idenya adalah sebagai berikut, “Ketika manusia sudah mengatasi semua kebutuhan dasarnya untuk bertahan hidup, ia pun dimungkinkan untuk mengejar pencarian lebih tinggi. Aktualisasi diri. Pengetahuan tentang dirinya sendiri di level yang paling dalam”.

Walaupun cuma sekutipan saja, tetapi bermakna cukup dalam yah. Intinya kita sebagai manusia harus mengejar pencarian yang lebih tinggi, yaitu aktualisasi diri. Aktualisasi diri ini bentuknya atau kegiatannya bermacam-macam sesuai panggilan nurani setiap manusia. Setiap orang berbeda-beda dalam menangkap konsep aktualisasi diri ini, dengan demikian aktualisasi diri tidak bisa digeneralisasikan sebagai suatu pikiran/tindakan/kegiatan tertentu.

Supernova bukan hanya nama serial buku ini, tetapi juga nama tokoh yang akan selalu ada diseluruh seri buku Supernova. Sosok supernova sebenarnya adalah misteri, namun setelah saya nonton film Supernova KPBJ yang diadopsi langsung dari buku ini; ternyata baru terlihat siapa supernova sebenarnya. ^_^

Dari keseluruhan cerita KPBJ, menurut saya Dee menitikberatkan keseluruhan ceritanya pada teori “Order and Chaos“. Order and Chaos adalah teori tentang sistem deterministik, tetapi pergerakannya sangat sensitif terhadap kondisi-kondisi inisial sehingga tidak memungkinkan adanya prediksi jangka panjang.

Sesempurna apapun sebuah tatanan, dapat dipastikan chaos selalu ada, membayangi seperti siluman abadi. Begitu sistem mencapai titik kritisnya, ia pun lepas mengubrak-abrik. Bahkan, dalam keadaan yang tampaknya ekuilibrium atau seimbang, sesungguhnya order and chaos hadir bersamaan sebagai perekat. Di mana terdapat zona kuantum, rimba infinit di mana segalanya relatif, kumpulan potensi, dan probabilitas.

Dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, kehadirannya dapat terasa dalam bentuk intermittency atau ketidaksinambungan. Keterputus-putusan. Paradigma reduksionisme, yang telah berabad-abad mendominasi dunia sains, tidak pernah memberikan perhatian pada fenomena ini. Dan, bagi manusia yang melihat dunia hanya hitam dan putih, maka ia harus siap-siap terguncang setiap kali memasuki area abu-abu dimensi kuantum. Karenanya, relativitas bagaikan kiamat bagi yang mengagung-agungkan objektivitas. Sains ternyata tidak selamanya objektif, dan seringkali harus subjektif.

Well readers, uda pusing belum? Sepertinya kalian sama pusingnya seperti saya yah. Pokoknya buku ini recommended banget untuk kamu baca. Pusing sedikit gapapa lah yah untuk menambah pengetahuan kamu.

Untuk cerita detail dan teori-teori serta konsep-konsep keilmuan apa saja yang dibahas di buku ini, kalian bisa langsung beli bukunya dan baca sendiri yah. Semangat!!!

With love,

Naomi Indah Sari



You also can follow my instagram:


or add me as friend on facebook:

Naomi Indah Sari

Universal Religion

When I came to the works of Serge Benhayon, I was invited to look at my relationship with religion. At first, all I could do was worry – worry about what would be said about religion and the effect this would be having on the people around me, including myself. I seemed to carry an inner-tension I had built up since I was young that would result in an increasing heartbeat the moment religion was spoken about.

For years it would activate all my past experiences of when religion was being heatedly discussed and fought over. Many of the conversations I would hear from my family members and people around would differ so much. I would be feeling quite uncomfortable as people would be sharing different thoughts, different ideals, which would often bring disharmony and destruction into the group.

When Serge first presented on religion, all I could feel and see were those images, those beliefs, those frightening moments, the feeling of war and absolute separation this subject or ‘word’ is causing currently and has caused in the past. My body shook in reaction to these images I had taken on around this word ‘religion.’ I remember it as clearly as yesterday.

So the moment when Serge introduced the word religion, I was bracing in my chair, my automatic response, waiting for the disharmonious conversations to happen. Yet this time it was not the case at all: instead of disharmony, there was a stillness, a love, a holding that held us together, a union, a space and place where there was understanding of each other and courage to trust.

At first I thought it was the word religion that was the negative one, but in this presentation I made a commitment to truly feel what was going on for me. I could see people around me equally react to this subject/word quite strongly. I was intrigued by the offering now given to us all to ponder on.

What does the word religion mean to us? And does it actually represent the religion that is in truth dear to us? And so, is the word religion used and lived in its true meaning?

I felt a little uncomfortable as those questions popped into my mind. I took the time to just sit still and observe whatever I was feeling around this subject. Even though I felt like running away like I always would do when this subject is raised, this discussion somehow felt true and was one that I wanted and was ready to face.

The presentation continued and I knew we were on a path of true and open discussion.

Having the feeling that all the people around me were quite shaken up through the questions being posed and discussing what religion meant to them, I was feeling truly safe, simply because I felt inside that for the first time in my life, the matter of religion was truly being asked without any demand whatsoever. We were being offered a space to truly ponder with no right or wrong scenario – one I had never been offered before. The nervous tension I had been carrying, including the quickened heartbeat, had eased. The feeling of truth and the purpose of what religion truly meant seemed to rise as my heart expanded.

The thing is, all I can say from my ponderings over what occurred this time is that the questions presented by Serge Benhayon offered me so much to consider. It wasn’t just simply the questions themselves, but the way they were discussed that actually inspired me to be more open again to my relationship with the word religion. Instantly, the false images and ideals I had been running with seemed to stand out naturally, as simply a deception and distraction away from the truth.

What I had found was that I had been living on the interpretations, opinions, judgements and expressions about this word, but never truly made it my own. I did not allow myself to have a relationship with the word religion on my own, nor discern how I felt about it. I became aware of what I felt, and at the same time looked at all these images, beliefs, and thoughts I had about religion. I could feel how many of them weren’t actually true to me. Yet I had lived by them, thinking they were true. No longer did these concepts fit as I became more aware of the truth in my heart.

I could feel how it was easier to go with the ideals, emotions, beliefs and expectations of those around me, or even blame others if it suited. But I always had felt that there was more. I could feel that if I were to stand up to feel my own truth about my personal relationship with religion, I would stand out and have more chance of being disliked. So I continued my reflection and simply observed my ways. I observed the way I looked at religion, and if there was anything to ‘living religiously.’ I can remember finding it almost scary to go there. It made me feel more real, vulnerable and tangible and at the same time I felt visible to people from the outside, as if they could see through me like looking through a glass door.

Was I in any way, shape or form religious? And if I was, was this then a bad thing? Instantly I could feel the flavour of hiding again. As I was being more observant with my own behaviours and old patterns around religion, I started to taste the false beliefs I had been walking in. I started to feel how many of these thoughts and questions pulled me away from the actual religion I was feeling on the inside of my heart’s truth. Oh wait, what did I just say?Could it be that what I had thought, believed, and acted on, even though I made myself a non-Christian, non-Islamic, non-Jew, non-Buddhist, non-Hindu etc, besides the bits of truth I carried from them, was so very different to what I felt religion meant within me?

Yes… it did. And at the same time I could feel how everyone had their own space to choose what it meant to them. All the converting and imposition that I once thought religion was about simply faded away.

Honesty and my observations brought me back closer to the truth I know. And so I allowed my power to come out and stand in the fact that I am a deeply religious person. Even though this means the absolute opposite of what is going on in all the religions in the world today, it is okay.

Even though I was not choosing to conform to the norm, I felt an inner joy and deep inner-strength back again, at the same time feeling One and the same with everyone  I was choosing the truth I felt in my heart. Even though there were some parts in life that did reflect the truth of my heart, it was in that very moment that I felt more universal, more expanded and closer to the All. I brought myself back, my religion back, which was not at all anything outside of me, but an activated connection and confirmation from within me. I felt a love that had no words, simply a connection to God. In this space all I found was what I now call my religion.

It was a moment of realisation. I could no longer put aside the truth I was feeling inside and I had to claim it for myself – as it is who I am. I knew that I would no longer fit into a certain box I had held myself in for so, so long. I was willing to take that step, even though I knew I had to leave behind my old behaviours – being nice to people, giving myself away for recognition or approval and wanting to be liked by people around me.

I also let go of certain needs – needing people to fulfil me, to make me feel good or better about myself. I accepted that people all of a sudden might see me as different, as an outsider. This also meant no longer holding on to relationships that naturally no longer worked and/or felt true or respectful.

All of this brought an enormous strength back in my body. With that there came trust and all I could feel wasGOD, Love, People and Brotherhood in action. My true personal relationship with religion became bright and alive again.

All of this was inspired by the teachings of Serge Benhayon: not only on that specific day, but at all the courses, presentations and sessions thereafter. Serge presents a livingness known as The Way of The Livingness, which is based on true religion in our every way –every day.

I came to feel that there is no such thing as having no religion or not being religious,but that we all have a deep knowing of what religion is. It is just a matter of connecting to it again. We are ALL part of it. We know we are all the same and religion binds us All.

Let us all re-awaken to the simple ways of what true religion is. It is within us all.

By Danna Elmalah


Buku: Memetics (Eko Wijayanto)

Bandung, 4 Juli 2017


Hi readers, kali ini saya mau share tentang buku yang sangat menarik yang saya pinjam dari teman saya yang berinisial DS. Buku ini digunakan oleh DS sebagai salah satu referensi untuk tesis S2 nya. Kami sering ngobrol dan diskusi tentang banyak hal, dan sering pula DS berdiskusi dengan saya tentang pengetahuan yang didapatnya selama pengerjaan tesisnya. Dengan penuh semangat DS berbagi ilmu dengan saya dan meminjamkan buku ini untuk saya baca, dan dengan semangat pula saya menyambut buku ini.

Buku Memetics ini merupakan hasil disertasi penulis, Eko Wijayanto saat beliau menempuh pendidikan S3 Filsafat di Universitas Indonesia. Konon menurut cerita DS, Eko Wijayanto adalah orang Indonesia pertama yang membahas tentang Memetics ini, sebelumnya referensi mengenai Memetics ini hanya didapat dari penulis-penulis luar.

Kalian semua pasti sudah mengetahui apa itu meme, namun memetics yang dibahas disini berbeda dengan meme yang kalian sudah ketahui. Walau begitu meme dan memetics tetap ada kaitannya. Meme yang sudah sangat dikenal sekarang ini, misal meme internet itu merupakan hasil/bentuk khusus dari memetics. Sebut saja meme adalah suatu objek, yang dapat kita lihat (ada gambar, ada tulisan, dan lain sebagainya); sedangkan memetics adalah teori dasar mengenai penyebaran atau terbentuknya suatu meme tersebut.


Sebelum lebih jauh kita membaca tentang memetics, kita harus ketahui lebih dahulu tentang genetika. Genetika identik dengan suatu DNA dalam tubuh manusia. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) berperan aktif dalam menentukan aktivitas biokimia dan sifat-sifat khusus sel. Dengan demikian, sifat-sifat bawaan manusia-seperti penyakit tertentu, kepribadian, naluri, perilaku, dan lainnya-sudah terkodekan dalam DNA. Melalui DNA inilah gen diwariskan dari generasi ke generasi. Yang unik pada manusia adalah terdapatnya replikator lain selain gen yang juga diwariskan, yakni replikator yang disebut meme. Meme meliputi segala sesuatu yang kita pelajari melalui imitasi, termasuk kosakata, legenda, kemampuan dan tingkah laku, permainan, lagu, ataupun peraturan. Meme mudah menyebar, menular, dan melompat dari satu pikiran ke pikiran lain. Meme menyebarkan diri tanpa melihat apakah ia akan berguna, netral, ataupun merugikan manusia.

Contoh meme yang akhirnya menjadi sebuah kepercayaan akan Tuhan. Dahulu kala manusia prasejarah mengenal ide-ide tentang sesuatu yang lebih tinggi dari kehidupan manusia dan melakukan pemujaan terhadapnya untuk mendapatkan kesejahteraan. Seiring perkembangan zaman, meme awal tersebut dianut oleh semakin banyak orang-dan kemungkinan juga mengalami distorsi-sampai akhirnya memiliki kekuatan untuk bertahan hingga sekarang.

DNA adalah protein dalam tubuh makhluk hidup yang membawa informasi genetik yang akan memengaruhi fenotipe dan genotipe kita. DNA diturunkan dari generasi ke generasi. Namun, setiap generasi tidak mungkin mewarisi DNA yang sama. Pasti terjadi sebuah eror yang disebut mutasi. Mutasi inilah yang menyebabkan perbedaan antara generasi satu dengan generasi lain.

Dengan mengamati fenotipe, kita bisa melihat bagaimana gen membentuk karakteristik individu. Fenotipe adalah karakteristik organisme yang dapat diamati secara langsung seperti warna iris, panjang ekor, warna kulit, dan sebagainya. Variasi makhluk hidup ini terjadi karena pembentukan genetik (genetic make up). Namun, ia tidak semata-mata ditentukan oleh faktor genetik, lantaran fenotipe merupakan hasil dari interaksi antara gen dengan lingkungan. Misalnya, orang-orang yang tinggal di sekitar ekuator umumnya memiliki kulit yang lebih gelap daripada mereka yang tinggal di daerah subtropis, apalagi kutub. Hal ini merupakan sebentuk adaptasi untuk melindungi tubuh dari cahaya matahari khatulistiwa yang lebih terik ketimbang di daerah kutub.

Menurut Dawkins, meme sangat mudah menular karena kita mempunyai kecenderungan meniru orang lain, meniru pemikiran dan ucapan orang merupakan langkah pertama dalam belajar. Kita juga merasa nyaman untuk meniru ide-ide dan gaya hidup orang-orang sukses, entah dalam bentuk mode pakaian ataupun cara berbisnis, misalnya.


Memetika merupakan derivasi dari teori evolusi Darwin. Jika genetika adalah ilmu yang mempelajari gen, maka memetika adalah ilmu yang mempelajari meme. Meme memiliki daur hidup dan tersebar layaknya virus yang berpindah dan bisa dipindahkan dari pikiran seseorang ke pikiran orang lain.

Penelitian dalam buku ini menggunakan hermeneutika evolusi (evolutionary hermeneutics) sebagai metodenya. Sebagai perkakas teoretis untuk membedah kebudayaan, menurut Nick Szabo, hermeneutika evolusi merupakan metode dalam kajian budaya yang merupakan sintesis antara hermeneutika, di mana Heidegger adalah pionirnya dengan kajian meme sebagai unit informasi budaya; di mana Richard Dawkins adalah pionirnya.

Memetika adalah ilmu pengetahuan yang menyingkap meme sebagai bahan dasar pembentuk mental seseorang. Berbeda dengan makhluk hidup lain, manusia memiliki kemampuan untuk mereplikasi mentalnya ke dalam berbagai bentuk artefak budaya-seni, sastra, agama, dan sebagainya. Hal ini layaknya gen yang bereplikasi membentuk gugusan sel, kemudian tubuh yang mampu bereproduksi.

William D. Hamilton, seorang ahli biologi, mengungkapkan teori seleksi kekerabatan (kin selection). Teori Hamilton ini merupakan pengembangan teori Darwin. Seleksi alam tidak peduli apakah suatu organisme bahagia atau sengsara dalam menjalani prosesnya, karena yang penting, informasi yang terdapat di dalam gen organisme tersebut dapat terus ada secara berkelanjutan. Pada setiap makhluk hidup juga terdapat gen altruisme. Besarnya altruisme pada amasing-masing individu berbeda-beda tergantung faktor-faktor yang memengaruhinya, salah satunya derajat kedekatan.


Altruisme didefinisikan sebagai sikap bersedia berkorban dan berbuat kebaikan demi kepentingan orang lain, baik dengan mengorbankan suatu usaha, waktu, pengeluaran, atau apa pun. Padahal, manusia secara instingtif dan rasional selalu mengejar kepentingan, kesenangan, dan kebahagiannya sendiri.

Dalam buku The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) karya Charles Darwin terdapat sebuah pernyataan yang menegaskan bahwa seseorang lebih merasakan simpati kepada penderitaan orang lain daripada penderitaannya sendiri. Hal ini membawa kita pada teori Darwin tentang moral manusia. Dalam The Descent of Man, Darwin menulis bahwa seseorang yang terbiasa berbuat baik kepada orang lain akan mendapatkan balasan yang setimpal. Apabila ia terus-menerus mempertahankan perbuatan baik tersebut, maka rasa simpati pun ikut tertanam di jiwanya. Rasa simpati ini, menurut Darwin, nantinya dapat diwariskan melalui gen.

Mengacu pada tulisan Darwin tersebut, George William menambahkan beberapa hal tentang hubungan timbal balik, bahwa apabila seseorang memaksimalkan hubungan pertemanan dan meminimalkan keegoisannya, maka orang tersebut akan mendapatkan keuntungan evolusioner dan bertahan dalam seleksi alam. Menurutnya hal tersebut dapat mengambangkan optimisme dalam hubungan antarindividu.

Darwinisme, yang dinamai oleh T. H. Huxley dan dikenal juga sebagai darwinisme ortodoks, setia pada pandangan awal Darwin bahwa mekanisme seleksi alam terjadi  di level individu dan berlangsung sangat panjang sebagai akibat dari mutasi di level genetik. Sementara sosiobiologi menolak pandangan tersebut dengan argumen bahwa mekanisme seleksi alam berlangsung di level sosial atau kelompok. Sosiobiologi berdiri di atas dua tesis mendasar:

  1. Beberapa sifat tingkah laku itu diwarisi;

  2. Sifat-sifat tingkah laku yang terwarisi itu diasah oleh mekanisme seleksi alam.


Menurut Richard Dawkins, meme adalah unit kebudayaan yang dapat dipindahkan, dikomunikasikan, digandakan, dan diwariskan. Contohnya lagu, puisi, teknik matematika, mode pakaian, dan berbagai pemanfaatan teknologi. Meme memperbanyak dirinya dengan melompat dari otak ke otak melalui imitasi.

Meme yang terdapat pada pikiran seseorang secara harafiah menjadi parasit dalam otak orang tersebut. Meme mengubah manusia tersebut menjadi perangkat untuk memperbanyak diri dengan cara yang sama dengan virus yang menjadi parasit pada mekanisme genetik sel induknya.

Suatu meme dapat tetap populer karena beberapa faktor:

Pertama, sifatnya yang tak dapat dibantah. Suatu meme doa, misalnya, menjadi berlipat ganda karena terus-menerus dipanjatkan dan tampaknya dikabulkan. Doa tersebut memiliki peluang untuk dipercayai dan sedikit peluang untuk ditolak.

Kedua, murah dalam hal waktu, uang, dan usaha. Ketiga, terasa menyenangkan dan menenteramkan, tak peduli apakah doa kita berhasil atau tidak, berdoa kerap kali tetap melegakan.

Kunci pembahasan Dawkins tentang meme adalah sifatnya yang selfish (egois) dan ruthless (kejam). Meme akan berkompetisi dengan meme rivalnya untuk memperebutkan perhatian otak manusia, mengingat otak manusia dan tubuh yang dikontrolnya tidak dapat menangani lebih dari satu atau beberapa problem pada saat yang bersamaan.

Dalam menjalani replikasi diri, meme mudah berkembang dan mengalami perubahan bentuk. Akan tetapi, sebagian memeplex merupakan konsepsi kuat yang dipegang teguh sehingga sulit untuk diubah. Dawkins menyebutnya sebagai virus of mind, virus pikiran yang tertanam dalam benak dan pemikiran seseorang sehingga sulit diubah dari bentuk awalnya. Virus pikiran ini sangat efektif ditanamkan terutama pada masa kanak-kanak-jika diterapkan pada orang dewasa konsep ini kerap mengalami hambatan dalam replikasinya.

Dalam pemikiran Dawkins, meme digunakan untuk menggambarkan bagaimana prinsip darwinian menjelaskan penyebaran ide dan fenomena budaya. Baik gen maupun meme sama-sama merupakan replikator. Hanya saja, gen diturunkan melalui reproduksi biologis, sementara meme diturunkan melalui proses pembelajaran budaya atau imitasi (mimesis). Sebagaimana gen yang merupakan unit transmisi biologis, sebagai unit transmisi kultural meme juga mengalami mutasi, kombinasi, dan seleksi oleh lingkungannya. Meme juga merupakan salah satu faktor yang berdampak besar terhadap perkembangan seorang individu dalam masyarakat. Di dalam otak manusia, meme tidak hanya tersimpan sebagai informasi untuk diingat, melainkan juga menjadi alat dalam berpikir. Meme juga dapat meniru atau memindahkan apa yang ada dalam satu kepala ke kepala lain melalui suatu rangkaian sosialisasi. Meme juga bukan sekadar faktor yang membantu otak mengingat, melainkan juga membantu menanamkan suatu gagasan dalam benak individu lain melalui persuasi sehingga apa yang ada di dalam pikiran kita dapat dimengerti oleh individu tersebut.


Banyak orang menganggap jiwa sebagai diri yang sesungguhnya, yang akan tetap hidup sekalipun seseorang sudah meninggal. Di sinilah muncul pandangan dualisme yang menganggap bahwa diri terdiri atas mesin yang berupa tubuh dan jiwa yang menggerakkannya. Sebaliknya, ada pula ekstrem yang berseberangan dengan pendapat itu, yang menganggap bahwa diri kita adalah keseluruhan otak ataupun keseluruhan raga.

Ketika suatu meme sudah tersimpan di dalam diri kita sebagai memori, maka ia akan memengaruhi segala tindakan yang kita lakukan. Kesadaran bahkan agak diabaikan ketika memori yang terangkai dari meme Tuhan dan meme-meme lain yang menyokongnya. Ketika orang sudah memiliki keyakinan terhadap Tuhan lantaran meme tentangnya sudah melekat benar di dalam diri orang tersebut, maka ia akan bersedia mengorbankan apa pun demi Tuhannya. Oleh karena itu, tentunya tidak gampang untuk mengontrol diri agar dapat menjadi sosok yang memiliki kesadaran penuh terhadap diri sendiri. Memori dalam hal ini merupakan fakta fisikalitas otak yang sangat terkait dengan temuan Libet mengenai readiness potential. Memori nampaknya bukan hanya mendahului tindakan kita, tapi bahkan mendahului keputusan kita untuk melakukan suatu tindakan. Gagasan ini tentu saja mengusik keyakinan umum tentang (otonomi) diri.

Terkait entitas yang kita namakan diri, kita dapati adanya dua konsep yang kerap digunakan untuk menjelaskannya:

Pertama, konsep real self yang menganggap diri sebagai entitas yang mampu bertahan sepanjang hidup dan terpisah dari otak maupun dunia luar, memiliki memori dan kepercayaan, melakukan imitasi tindakan, mengalami berbagai pengalaman dalam hidup, dan membuat keputusan.

Di sisi lain ada konsep kedua, yaitu illusory self, yang menganggap diri sebagai sekumpulan pikiran, sensasi, dan pengalaman yang disatukan bersama oleh sejarah. Menurut konsep ini ilusi tersebut berasal dari pemikiran otak ataupun sebuah fantasi.

Dalam memetika, diri merupakan memeplex besar yang terdiri atas berbagai pemikiran dan pengalaman yang mendukung tindakan sehari-hari. Memeplex merupakan sekumpulan meme yang berhimpun bersama demi keuntungan bersama dan membentuk suatu kesatuan yang dapat melakukan seleksi untuk menerima ataupun menolak meme baru yang ingin masuk. Dengan kata lain, memeplex menjadi filter bagi kita dalam berinteraksi dengan dunia luar. Agama, ideologi, maupun pendirian merupakan produk dari memeplex yang bekerja dengan sangat sistematis di dalam diri manusia. Pada titik ini kita melihat bahwa meme-meme dapat memperoleh keuntungan dengan membentuk satu asosiasi yang kemudian menjadi konsep diri seseorang.

Meme yang berhasil masuk ke dalam diri dan menjadi ide-ku atau opini-ku adalah para pemenang dalam kompetisi antar meme. Kepemilikan manusia atas sesuatu mempunyai banyak fungsi, termasuk menentukan status personal. Dalam hal ini, kepemilikan yang dimaksud adalah segala sesuatu yang tanpanya kita akan merasakan kehilangan. Dengan kata lain, kepemilikan inilah yang memberi kita perasaan akan diri. Bentuk-bentuk kepemilikan ini dapat hidup dalam diri kita berkat kontribusi meme yang menjangkiti diri kita. Akan tetapi, hal ini pun menimbulkan konsekuensi: semakin kita terikat pada apa yang kita miliki; kepercayaan, opini, pilihan personal, maka kita sendiri akan kian menjadi pelindung utama bagi meme yang terkait kepemilikan itu. Apalagi semakin kompleks masyarakat yang kita tinggali, semakin banyak pula meme yang berlomba-lomba masuk ke dalam otak kita. Dengan demikian, meme kita mungkin malah akan menjadi senjata makan tuan jika kita salah memanfaatkannya.

Singkat kata, suatu selfplex, diri yang dikonstruksi oleh meme-meme; disebut sukses bukan karena ia benar, baik, atau indah, bukan pula karena ia membuat kita bahagia dan mendukung kelanjutan gen kita. Melainkan, selfplex tersebut sukses tatkala meme yang masuk ke dalam diri mendorong dan berhasil membuat kita bekerja demi kepentingan replikasi mereka. Dengan kata lain, hidup kita ini merupakan bentukan meme, di mana kita terjebak dalam tirani meme.

Meme memang tersimpan dalam otak. Setiap input yang masuk ke otak adalah sesuatu yang didasarkan pada pengalaman. Bila tidak begitu penting dan berharga, maka suatu memori akan menghilang dengan sendirinya. Namun bila inputnya besar atau memori itu penting, ia akan terus berada di otak dan mudah direkonstruksi serta diingat. Begitu pula dengan input yang berupa meme. Suatu meme berada di otak dan mudah bereplikasi jika mudah diingat.

Menurut Lamarck, upaya setiap individu untuk mencapai perbaikan dirinya merupakan sifat yang diturunkan (herediter). Kini istilah Lamarckian mengacu pada karakteristik individu yang diperoleh dalam hidupnya yang dapat diturunkan. Bila dalam hidup individu memperoleh keahlian baru, maka keahlian itu bisa diturunkan. Pandangan ini tidak terlalu cepat karena mengasumsikan keahlian akan berpengaruh terhadap gen seseorang. Hal ini terkait erat dengan fenotipe dan genotipe dalam evolusi biologis. Genotipe merupakan penyusun genetik seseorang, sedangkan fenotipe adalah karakter fisik yang nampak, seperti warna rambut atau warna kulit. Fenotipe jelas sangat bergantung  dan ditentukan oleh genotipe; namun tidak sebaliknya. Dengan demikian, jika seseorang memperoleh keahlian baru (fenotipe), maka keahlian tersebut tidak akan berpengaruh pada genotipnya.

Ketika kita meniru tingkah laku seseorang, ada sesuatu yang berpindah yang kemudian bisa terus-menerus berpindah dari satu orang ke orang lain. “Sesuatu” inilah yang oleh Dawkins disebut meme. Meme adalah segala sesuatu yang bertransmisi dari pikiran satu orang ke orang lain, termasuk kosakata, legenda, kemampuan dan tingkah laku, permainan, lagu, ataupun peraturan.


Kehendak bebas sebenarnya baru terjadi ketika seseorang secara sadar dan sepenuhnya bebas memutuskan untuk melakukan sesuatu. Dalam hal ini, seseorang itu harus benar-benar menjadi agen yang memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukannya tanpa campur tangan faktor lain. Dalam pandangan filsuf Daniel Dennett, kesadaran manusia hanyalah serangkaian meme yang kompleks dan besar, yang kemudian membentuk selfplex. Semua alat berpikir yang kita gunakan selama ini sebenarnya telah disediakan secara tidak langsung oleh meme.

Well readers, jika penjelasan meme diatas membingungkan, saya akan mencoba menjelaskannya dengan sederhana. Seperti yang sudah dibahas di atas bahwa meme adalah virus of mind, atau virus pikiran yang disebarkan dari pikiran (otak) satu orang ke pikiran (otak) orang yang lain. Dalam arti, meme adalah semacam ideologi, nilai-nilai, pemikiran, konsep-konsep, teori-teori, dan lain sebagainya yang digunakan oleh seseorang dan disebarkan atau dibagikan kepada orang lain melalui pikiran yang dikomunikasikan.

Seperti yang sudah kita baca di atas, meme bersaing dengan meme yang lain. Meme yang kuat (meme yang diberikan secara berulang-ulang) akan menang dan mengalahkan meme yang lain yang lebih lemah.

DS berpendapat berdasarkan buku Memetics ini bahwa meme yang paling kuat adalah meme agama, di mana meme agama sudah ditanamkan oleh orangtua kepada anak-anaknya sejak masa kanak-kanak. Anak-anak ini akhirnya memiliki konsep pemikiran yang telah dibentuk oleh meme agama tersebut. Semakin sering, semakin banyak, dan semakin rutin anak tersebut menerima meme yang sama setiap saat, meme ini akan semakin kuat mempengaruhi otak/pikiran anak hingga dewasa. Eko Wijayanto sendiri menulis dalam bukunya bahwa saking kuatnya meme agama, banyak pula orang-orang yang bertindak sedemikian rupa untuk membela agamanya, dan lain sebagainya.

Selain itu, DS juga memberikan contoh lain. Misal meme bahasa, saat kita sudah terbiasa berbahasa Indonesia misalnya, lalu kita pindah dan tinggal ke daerah Jawa Barat yang berbahasa Sunda (misal 1 tahun); meme bahasa Indonesia dapat melemah, dan meme bahasa Sunda akan meningkat.

Meme dapat berupa banyak hal, meme hadir pada pikiran manusia tanpa mengetahui apakah dia berguna atau tidak, apakah akan bermanfaat atau tidak, apakah akan merugikan atau menguntungkan, dan sebagainya. Meme adalah salah satu konstruksi yang direplikasikan pada pikiran manusia. Kita semua, termasuk saya adalah bentuk dari meme. Semua yang kita lihat, semua yang kita dengar, semua yang kita pelajari merupakan meme-meme yang tersebar, masuk, dan memengaruhi pikiran kita.

Walau demikian, saya mau sedikit menambahkan walaupun kita seringkali dibenturkan atau dipertemukan oleh meme-meme yang berusaha masuk ke otak/pikiran kita, namun menurut saya kita tetap memiliki gatekeeper dalam pikiran kita yaitu berupa logika di mana kita dapat memilih untuk mengikuti meme yang sudah ditransfer atau tidak. Apapun pilihan kita tersebut tetap saja merupakan pengaruh dari meme sebelumnya yang sudah ada dalam pikiran kita dan standing still (kuat) dan tidak mudah dikalahkan dengan meme lain yang baru saja masuk ke pikiran kita.

Penjelasan saya diatas merupakan penjelasan mengenai teori meme. Nah sekarang apa yang kalian tahu tentang meme? Apakah meme yang seperti di bawah ini?


Gambar di atas tersebut adalah meme, mari kita sebut gambar di atas sebagai meme internet. Meme internet tersebut berasal dan berdasarkan teori memetics. Meme merupakan suatu replikator. Dawkins mengidentifikasi 3 kriteria bagi replikator yang sukses, yaitu harus bisa dikopi secara akurat (fecundity), bisa dikopi dalam jumlah banyak (fidelity), dan bisa bertahan untuk waktu yang lama (longetivity). Nah, kenapa gambar-gambar di atas disebut meme, sederhananya dikarenakan telah memenuhi 3 aspek tersebut, di mana meme dapat dikopi, diperbanyak, disebarkan, dan bertahan dalam kurun waktu tertentu (lama). Gambar meme yang berupa candaan, sindiran, mengandung unsur politik, dan lain sebagainya tersebut dibuat sedemikian menarik untuk memengaruhi orang yang melihat gambar dan membaca tulisan pada gambar tersebut. Sedikit banyak kita tetap diantar pada teori meme, di mana gambar meme tersebut dapat saja memengaruhi pikiran kita dan dapat mengubah pola pikir kita.

Well readers, sampai disini dulu yah pembahasan kita mengenai memetics. Semoga bermanfaat. ^_^

With love,

Naomi Indah Sari


Wijayanto, Eko. 2013. Memetics: Perspektif Evolusionis Membaca Kebudayaan. Depok: Kepik.

You also can follow me on instagram:


Or add me as friend on facebook:

Naomi Indah Sari

Sexual Harrasment: Case Study in USA

Bandung, April 14th 2017 


I found an article about the issue in USA which talk about sexual harrasment. I really concern about this topic, and I found this interesting article. Lets read it…

Happy reading….. 


One of the most pernicious ideas in American life is that sexual harassment lawsuits are an example of political correctness gone mad.

For the last few months I’ve been working on a video series for Highline, a re-examination of all the things we got wrong in the 1990s. The first episode is about the sexual harassment freakouts that cropped up in the wake of the Anita Hill hearing and what was really behind them.

Here’s a sequence that didn’t make it into the final cut, four women testifying at a 1992 Congressional hearing:

This is why we have sexual harassment laws.

Before 1986, none of these stories would have been illegal. Until Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the only workplace discrimination that fell under the law was quid pro quo harassment, the kind where your boss explicitly tells you that if you want this promotion, you’ll have to sleep with him. Skeezy comments about your looks, getting groped at the water cooler, being told you had to meet a higher standard because of your gender, all that was just the cost of being a woman at work.

The most incredible thing about these cases, though, isn’t just the shittiness of the people perpetrating them. It’s the narrow-mindedness of the people in charge of punishing them.

Reading old sexual harassment cases, what you see over and over again is judges who simply couldn’t accept that women were blameless in their own abuse. One victim testified that she been assaulted by her boss for three straight years, that he touched her under the table during work meetings, that he bought her dinner her first week on the job and invited her to a motel afterward. The judges were skeptical. What was she wearing? Why did she go to dinner in the first place? Didn’t she eventually give in and have sex with him? Surely his advances weren’t that unwelcome.

This is how members of Congress treated Anita Hill too. If Clarence Thomas had been such a terrible boss, they asked her in 50 different ways, why did she later ask him for a reference? Despite all the alleged harassment, Arlen Specter pointed out, she never once complained to Thomas’s superiors. She even—gasp—picked him up at the airport once, years after they stopped working together.

It’s fascinating to me all the ways in which societal power is invisible to the people wielding it. For old, white, affluent judges, it simply didn’t make sense that a woman would have sex with her manager unless she really wanted to. Congress members couldn’t comprehend why a woman would maintain a relationship with her dickhead former boss, why she would wait years before publicly complaining about his behavior, why she would read aggression into his flirting and his backrubs and his ribald anecdotes.

I don’t think every judge and every Senator back then was a big old sleazebag. What I do think is that they suffered from a specific form of blindness, one that is human and understandable and utterly pernicious. We are all, in ways major and minor, incapable of seeing the world through anything but our own example. If you have never feared unemployment, the moral compromises others make to avoid it seem foreign. If you have never been hurt by jokes about your gender or your race or your sexuality, those who complain about them seem oversensitive.

Somehow, in the 25 years since the Anita Hill hearing (and, as I argue in the video, the passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act), sexual harassment has become a synonym for a country that can no longer take a joke. Colleagues can’t even ask each other out for a drink nowadays. Managers can’t pat their employees on the shoulder.

But in fact, sexual harassment cases have been dwindling for years, and the mechanisms behind them have been steadily eroded. Since 1991, punitive damages have been capped at $500,000. Those eight-digit settlements you’re always reading about? Companies only have to pay a fraction of them. A study in 2002 found that more than half of large punitive damages awards got overturned on appeal. And that’s for the cases that make it to court. The vast majority of them don’t.

The real problem, in other words, is not that we have all become oversensitive. It is that we are not sensitive enough.

I am sure that, in this big and crowded country, someone somewhere has filed a frivolous lawsuit claiming to be sexual harassed when they weren’t. But becoming the country where that happens is not what we should fear. It is becoming the country that we used to be—one where  no one is allowed to file them at all.


What we talk about when we talk about sexual harassment


I find myself caged, a confinement that can’t be broken,

I stare deep into the mirror, but hit a blank wall painted as black as a raven;

The noise gets louder and louder in the quietness of my mind,

So many heads around, but I’m trapped in a solitude that’s one of a kind;

As I delve deeper and deeper into the ocean of my thoughts,

I keep going places, wandering over lands with myriad cultures, lush grass covering all the spots;

A child keeps laughing, playing with a broken toy,

How happy he looks, the innocence of ignorance even God can’t destroy; 

Funny how these visions reflect the very rudiments of my cognition, 

As I stand on a ledge over the grandeur of my subtle imagination; 

Is there another soul dawdling through this realm uncouth, but real?

I hear echoes from far and near, so many voices that I cannot deal!

‘There’s light in the end of the tunnel’, they always say,

But to the blind, light is a luxury they can’t afford to pay!

By the caravan of thoughts they can travel as far as they plea,

To the lands of chaotic pleasure, away from this insanity. 


© thegirlonthego08 2017

Thoughts (A Poem) – 

You also can follow my instagram: naomiindahsari 

My facebook: naomi indah sari

Whether or not I believed in God

Bandung, February 19th 2017 


Hi readers, I copied the article below from another blog that I follow. He wrote his thoughts about what matter for being a religious or what matter for joining a religion is nonsense. Whatever… Just read it…. 😉 


I remember around the age of 16/17 being asked by a friend at school whether or not I believed in God. I responded by saying that it would be crazy not to, but I did not believe in God in the way we are taught through the varying religions. So at one level I was saying yes to God but at another level I was denouncing all of the organised religions that I knew. I grew up having been to schools heavily influenced by the Catholic religion and whilst I liked some parts of the teachings, there were far too many discrepancies that I did not agree with and which did not make any sense to me.

This led me to the following conclusions about organised religion:

  • I grew up thinking that religion was something outside of me, where I had to go to a church or a priest to have access. This meant sitting in a cold church on uncomfortable seats, listening to things that in the main did not make much sense to my life!
  • It was something you had to go to on a regular basis. If you did not, you were seen as being bad.
  • You had to renounce your sins and somehow they would be taken away at confession. This starts with the premise that you have sinned and are already bad. It also implies you can get away with anything so long as you confess it afterwards.
  • That in order to be closer to God you needed to be a monk or a priest. This put God out of personal reach.
  • You had Heaven, a state of nirvana or bliss to look forward to at the end of your life… if you lived a good life, otherwise you would end up in hell. This led to a feeling of always trying to do the right and best thing whilst not wanting to own up to or admit mistakes. It led me to try to be a perfect boy growing up – polite, attentive and not saying what I truly felt.
  • You had to prove yourself in order to get to Heaven and that life needed to be hard and arduous. So I could not simply be myself, I was always trying to be someone else, someone better.
  • That you would go to war over your religion. The sheer amount of bloodshed that has been caused over religion is inconceivable. We were told we are all equal, yet those who are not in the religion are perceived as sinners and will go to hell.
  • Illness and disease are punishments from God. This takes away all responsibility for our own actions… leading to us blaming and resenting God and other people.

Now all of those can seem fairly obvious examples of what put me off religion but for me the most insidious one was actually being repulsed and turned off by the word religion itself, so much so that I would run a million miles away from it. When I came across The Way of The Livingness I found it very hard to accept the fact that it was about a religious way of life, and that I already am a deeply religious person. So whilst I struggled internally with this fact, although I knew it to be true, I began to feel how I had stopped fully claiming the relationship with myself, with God and with other people.

I have been almost ashamed or fearful of using the word religion because of its many connotations and so have shied away from using the word in my life. I have even shied away from really opening up about The Way of The Livingness to others, in case they may take it the wrong way. It is crazy in a world where we are led to believe in freedom of speech that I have stopped myself from speaking about the one thing that I hold very dear to my heart.

There are many tenets of The Way of The Livingness which cannot all be listed here, but here are some, which for me show the real and true sense of the word religion:

  • Everything is within me, no one is greater or more special than I am.
  • We are all the equal Sons of God and are born with a knowing of this fact.
  • There is no building you can go to, to be closer to God.
  • We are returning to the love we are and not going anywhere and so are able to live this love no matter what.
  • Access to God or Heaven is not restricted – we simply have to make a choice to connect and live in a way that supports this choice.
  • We are responsible for all of our choices and what happens to us.
  • The doors are always open and no one is ever excluded or judged for their choices.

As I say the list can go on but more is not needed here – this quote says it all:

Honouring the love you are in full and bringing that into full human life forms the basis of a new worldly religious way known as The Way of The Livingness.

(Serge Benhayon, Esoteric Teachings and Revelations, p 648)

It has been a very freeing experience to no longer feel shackled by thoughts that say I am not religious. It is also very freeing to claim that everything I could ever want is already within me.This has taken off a lot of the strain and pressure of wanting and thinking that I need to get somewhere and then, only then, can I let go and be myself.

So yes, I can not only claim that I am religious, I can in fact state that I am deeply religious.

Do I shout this from the rooftops? No, for there is no need.

Do I need to convert people with my words? No, for they will see the way that I live.

Does it matter what anybody else thinks about me? No, for if I am living the love that I am then this is more than enough confirmation for me.

By James Nicholson BNat, Design Consultant, Frome, UK


Am I Religious? – 

You also can follow my instagram: naomiindahsari 

My facebook: naomi indah sari