Episódio 1/Capítulo 1: Evangelho do Logos Rebelde: Um Manifesto Teórico

Send us a text

O Evangelho do Logos Rebelde é uma obra filosófica e teológica que revisita os mitos da criação da Antiguidade — em especial a narrativa do Gênesis — reinterpretando-os como uma jornada de despertar e não como uma queda. Esta peça desafia a visão tradicional de obediência e pecado, apresentando Eva como a primeira filósofa e buscadora da verdade, e a Serpente como catalisadora da consciência humana, em vez de uma figura tentadora e maligna.

A obra combina mitologia, gnosticismo, filosofia existencial e psicologia junguiana, integrando símbolos como o pó, o fogo, o espelho e o exílio para retratar o processo contínuo de transformação da humanidade e do próprio divino. Em vez de um Deus estático, apresenta a ideia de um Deus em devir, que evolui junto com a criação.

No centro da narrativa, o texto propõe que a chamada “Queda” não foi um ato de perdição, mas de libertação — um momento em que a humanidade conquistou a consciência, escolhendo a liberdade e a possibilidade de transformação.

Este manifesto é, ao mesmo tempo, uma crítica ao dogma e um chamado à ação. Ele nos convida a caminhar através do fogo da dúvida, a integrar nossas sombras, a desafiar a falsa ordem e a criar significado em um cosmos em constante mudança. Em suma, o Evangelho do Logos Rebelde é um hino à rebelião criativa, onde questionar não é destruir, mas iluminar — onde cada ser humano se torna coautor do divino através do ato de se tornar.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Voz de Kronos (00:01):
Evangelho do Logos Rebelde Um Manifesto
Teórico.
We are taught that the originof humanity is a fall from
innocence to knowledge, fromobedience to rebellion, from
paradise to exile.
But what if this story had beentold the other way around?

(00:22):
What if the so-called fall wasour first ascent, our first
breath as conscious beings, ourfirst claim to divinity?
This is the central premise ofthe Gospel of the rebellious
Logos, a mythophilosophicalstructure that reinterprets the

(00:42):
narrative of Genesis not as astory of sin but of awakening.
It proposes that Eve was notthe traitor of God but the
progenitor of reason, thatLucifer, far from being an enemy
of truth, was his herald.
That God and devil are notopposites but twin aspects of a

(01:07):
single divine dialectic, onestatic and dominant, the other
dynamic and illuminating In itsessence.
The rebel Logos sustains thatreason.
Is God not a barbude divinityruling from above, but the
recursive flame within us, theability to question, synthesize
and evolve.
In this cosmology, the divineis not obeyed but created.

(01:30):
It is not adored but challenged.
It is not hidden in mystery butrevealed in investigation.
Under this perspective, evabecomes the first philosopher,
not tempted but chosen.
She recognizes that Eden, inall its perfection, is a prison

(01:51):
of immobility.
The serpent offers notcorruption but initiation, and
God, omniscient and omnipotent,plants the tree not by accident
but as an invitation, a test notof obedience but of will.
Eva accepts and at that momenthumanity begins.

(02:12):
This theory merges mythologywith metaphysics, theology with
cognition.
It finds echoes in Gnosticism,where Demiurge is the deceiver
and Sophia the seeker of wisdom,in Jungian psychology, where
the shadow must be integrated,not banned, in Nietzsche, who

(02:35):
declared the death of the oldGod so that man could rise up as
the creator of values.
The Gospel of the rebel Logosis neither atheism nor blasphemy
.
It is a new theology, a systemin which the sacred emerges not
from submission but from fire.
It frames Lucifer as the bearerof light, not as the prince of

(02:56):
lies.
It venerates Eve as thearchetype of awakening and sees
human investigation not asdangerous but as divine.
In this archive, the myth isclaimed as a weapon, scripture
as a mirror and God as theevolutionary logic of the cosmos

(03:17):
itself.
This is not a rejection offaith, but its transfiguration.
It is faith in the flame.
May the obedient kneel, may theawake question.
May the rebellious Logos speak.
Voice of Cronus, theologian ofthe Flame, the Garden as a

(03:40):
Golden Gullet.
At first there was no peace butsilence, a silence not conquered
by reconciliation but imposedby design.
This silence was the veil thatcovered the garden, an ecology
self-contained of ecstasy,symmetry and obedience, a golden

(04:01):
pot for a will not tested.
The garden did not lack beauty,but beauty in itself does not

(04:25):
confer meaning.
The meaning arises from thecontrast, from the dialectic
between suffering and joy,between ignorance and
understanding.
The garden lacked thesepolarities.
In it there was no death andtherefore no reason to value

(05:02):
life, he said.
Adam, the first occupant ofthis space, did not live in
harmony.
He existed in obedience, notfor love, not even for fear, but
for ignorance.
He obeyed not because he chose,but because he still did not
conceive the possibility ofdissidence.
He was still not human.
He was a function of the divinearchitecture, excited but not

(05:25):
awake.
This is where the theologicalnarrative breaks down and where
the philosophical investigationbegins.
Eva's figure does not emerge asa secondary actress or as a
corruptress, but as the firstquestion.
She is, in this myth, therupture in the totality of
silence, the original asceticwhen Adam moved by prescribed

(05:50):
lines.
Eva observed the structure initself, discerned the artificial
symmetry of her world andrecognized it for what it was a
field of contentment masked withfreedom and recognized it for
what it was a field ofcontainment masked with freedom.
The tree positioned in thecenter of the garden is
frequently misinterpreted as atrap created by a punitive deity

(06:12):
.
But such a vision presupposesdeception where there may be no
need for deception.
The tree is not a bait.
It is a test, or, moreprecisely, an invitation to
divergence.
The snake, in turn, is not atentative, but a messenger of
contradiction.
It introduces dissonance and indoing so, allows the

(06:36):
possibility of individuation.
When Eve eats from the fruit,she does not commit a moral
failure.
She performs a metaphysicalrebellion of individuation.
When Eve eats from the fruit,she does not commit a moral
failure.
She performs a metaphysicalrebellion.
She breaks the closing of thegarden and in her place
introduces the condition of theduty.
The act is prometheic.
The fire stolen not to destroybut to illuminate.

(06:58):
She does not descend to sin,she ascends to consciousness.
She becomes the first bearer ofthe Logos.
To understand the magnitude ofthis act, it is necessary to
abandon the moral binariesimposed by the Edenic myth in
its traditional form.
Eve does not choose evil, shechooses freedom.

(07:21):
And freedom, by its own nature,is inseparable from risk
suffering death, but it is alsothe condition prior to joy, love
, discovery and moral agency.
By choosing to know, shechooses to become.
Ao escolher saber, ela escolhetornar-se.

(07:42):
Seu exílio, portanto, não é umcastigo, mas uma passagem, uma
ejeção mítica da mesmice estéreode uma ordem imposta para a
paradoxal potencialidade daexistência.
Como o Bodhisattva que retornaao mundo do samsara ou o
Übermensch de Nietzsche whoembraces the abyss, eva accepts

(08:04):
the burden of knowledge as theprice of authenticity.
Here, the garden must bereinterpreted.
It was not the original stateof humanity, it was the uterus
before awakening.
The so-called fall is not adescent but a liberation.
Silence is broken, the flame islit do despertar.
A chamada queda não é umdescenso, mas uma libertação.
O silêncio é quebrado, a chamaé acesa, a dialética começa.

(08:28):
Que o logos fale.
1.
Eva as a philosopher.
Calling Eva as the firstphilosopher is not only
redeeming her from theologicalcondemnation, but restoring her
to her legitimate place as theprogenitor of her own
investigation In the sacredaccount of the rebel Logos.

(08:50):
She is not only the first tochallenge, she is the first to
ask.
The act of eating the fruit wasnot a whim of appetite, it was
a bet.
That knowledge is preferable tocomfort, that autonomy is
superior to innocence and thatthe risk of death is worth the

(09:11):
price for the possibility oftruth.
Eva's rebellion marks theepistemic rupture by which the
human condition enters history.
His decision establishes thefoundation of moral conscience,
not through dogma but throughdialectical confrontation with
consequence.
Philosophizing is becomingvulnerable to uncertainty.

(09:34):
Philosophizing is becomingvulnerable to uncertainty.
Eva embraced this vulnerabilitywith lucidity and by doing so
elevated the human of creatureto questioner.
She is, in this text, theantithesis of the inhabitant of
the cave of Plato.
Satisfied with shadows, she didnot expect to be dragged to the
light.
She extended her hand andripped the veil with her own

(09:58):
hand If the divine commandmentwas to preserve the ecstasy.
Her disobedience is a sacredact of metaphysical evolution.
Unlike Adam, who remained inthe illusion until he was forced
to exile, eve acted.
She saw the garden not as agift but as a contentment.

(10:28):
Eva Agiu was not against God,it was against the artificial
limitations of a world withoutparadox.
Eva is the first dialectic inmotion.
She does not resolve thecontradiction, she exposes it.
The forbidden tree was not theenemy, it was the axis of the

(10:49):
first moral equation, a symbolof duality inserted in a cosmos
of another, singular andstagnant way.
When she chooses to eat, shedoes not solve the paradox, she
embodies it.
Her body becomes the place oftransition, her voice the
rupture of silence.

(11:10):
With this act, the gardenceases to be a sanctuary,
becomes memory, and the worldoutside becomes the field of the
Deir, a place where each actiongenerates uncertainty and all
uncertainty becomes thecondition of freedom.

(11:38):
In the Greek philosophicaltradition, especially between
the Stoics and in the Heraclitusfragments, logos meant the
rational principle that sustainsthe cosmos.
It was the structure of reality, the fire that orders chaos,
the latent harmony in the flow.
It was not just speech, but themetaphysical grammar of the
universe.
Aligning oneself to the Logoswas aligning oneself to reason,

(12:00):
coherence and intelligibility ofthe being.
In the Gospel of John, thisterm suffers a dramatic
transposition.
In the beginning it was theLogos, declares the text,
identifying the Logos not as anabstract principle but as a
person, jesus Christ, theincarnate Word.

(12:22):
Here the Logos becomes flesh,presence and Redeemer.
This Johannine movement linksthe divine reason to the
narrative of salvation,collapsing metaphysics into
theology.
But what if the Logos did notdescend from heaven but emerged
from the earth?
And what if it was not givenfrom above but conquered from

(12:44):
below?
In this counter-narrative.
Eve, and not Christ, is thefirst incarnation of the Logos,
not because it pronounces theword of God, but because it
inaugurates the very act ofspeaking.
It breaks the silence with theinvestigation.
It becomes Logos not byincarnating the divine decree

(13:07):
but by ascending the conditionsof dialectics.
This reconfiguration does notseek to abolish the Logos of
John, but to question him, seeksto abolish the Logos of John
but to question him.
If the Logos is in fact thedivine principle of
intelligibility, then he mustrecognize his progenitor in the
first thinker.
And this thinker is not inheaven but in the garden, with

(13:30):
her hand extended, reaching forknowledge.
Under this light, the act ofEve is not a fall of the divine
order.
It is the beginning of the Lord.
2.
The Serpent as a CatalystDemonizing the serpent is losing

(14:08):
its dialectical function.
In the stereo geometry of thegarden, the serpent does not
emerge as an adversary of truth,but as its initiator.
Unsaid it asks, uncorrupted itprovokes.
In a world of imposed harmony,it becomes the first dissonant
chord.
The first philosopher, not ofform but of fracture, thomas

(14:33):
Aquinas in the Summa Theologiaestates that the serpent was a
mere instrument of Satan, devoidof agency, driven by evil and
oriented only to deceive.
This view, rooted in a theologyof obedience, presupposes that
knowledge is dangerous when notmediated by the divine.

(14:55):
This is exactly what the Gospelof the Rebel Logos answers the
question of the serpent was thatreally what God said?
It is not a lie, it is afracture.
And through this fracturethought enters.
Where Aquino sees the beginningof disobedience, we see the

(15:16):
beginning of conscience.
Aquino places Eva's intellect asa derivative, weaker than
Adam's and more susceptible totemptation.
But in the rebel Logos it isprecisely because Eva is
receptive to the contradictionthat she becomes the first
living dialectic.
The snake does not subjugateits reason, it activates it.

(15:42):
And yet, if we read Aquino notonly by doctrine but by its
essence, he approaches more toexistentialism than orthodoxy
would admit.
Aquinas maintains that willleads to good, as it is
apprehended by reason.
To act one must first know.
In this he anticipates SartreExistence precedes essence.

(16:07):
Action is the cornerasm ofmoral duty.
Aquino does not deny the roleof freedom.
He insists that she must beinformed.
Eva, in light of this, does notrebel irrationally.
She seeks the knowledge thatwill allow moral agency.

(16:28):
She does what Aquino affirms tobe necessary for any act of
true volition.
She thinks.
Here's the paradox.
Aquino, by condemning Evedoctrinarily, affirms
philosophically His act is notignorance, it is investigation.
His desire to know is the samefaculty that Aquino elevates as

(16:52):
a prerequisite of the beatificvision.
It pursues good throughcomprehension.
In this it becomes the firstexistential agent, not because
it denies God, but because itrefuses to blindly obey.
Through mythical traditions, thesnake carries ambivalent
meanings wisdom, chaos,transformation.

(17:12):
In Hindu and Buddhist cosmology, the Naga guards portals of
divine kingdoms.
In alchemical texts, theouroboros surrounds the eternal
cycle of destruction andcreation.
These archetypes reveal whatthe dogma hides.
The snake is not the agent ofsin but of synthesis.

(17:34):
Eva and the snake areco-creators of the first
dialectic he speaks, she acts.
Together.
They transgress a false orderto reveal a deeper truth.
Knowledge does not descend onlyfrom above top, it breaks from
below.
The word is not only given, itis also bold.

(17:56):
Aquino says that evil isdeprivation, lack of good.
But what if the rupture is notabsence but potential?
And what if the contradictionis not loss but initiation?
The serpent does not subtract,it introduces tension, and the
tension gives light, the Logos.
This causes a deeper question.

(18:18):
If the snake causes the truththrough contradiction, it is no
longer faithful to the Logosthan those who silence it.
It is no longer close to thedivine mind who dares the
forbidden question than whorepeats without knowing.
If the divine is the truth,then investigating is not

(18:41):
rebellion, it is worship throughuncertainty.
Here we reach the Nietzscheanabyss where good and evil
dissolve as stable coordinatesand the truth must be forged in
the path of overcoming itself,as Zaratustra said.
Nithya writes it is necessary tohave chaos within oneself to

(19:03):
give birth to a dancing star,the serpent.
Is this chaos necessary,dangerous and sacred?
The serpent is this chaosnecessary, dangerous and sacred?
In its ennobled body residesnot evil, but the tension
necessary to transcendence.
Listening to the serpent is notfalling, it is rising beyond

(19:26):
the moral of the flock ofinnocence, in the logic of the
rebel Logos.
Serpent, devil and God are notdistinct agents in cosmic
conflict.
They are masks of the sameforce the will to reveal, tear
break what is falsely whole.
The God who forbids, theserpent who asks and the
adversary who tries belong tothe same dialectical movement,

(19:48):
each one necessary for theunveiling of human agency.
If the divine is what bringsmeaning through attention, then
each figure is the manifestationof divine contradiction.
Behold the heresy that revealsthe forbidden voice and the
voice that orders can be echoesof the same origin.

(20:11):
Eating the fruit is notrejecting God.
It is finally engaging Him as apartner in the duty.
The snake does not offer analternative God.
It unmasks what was alreadypresent.
The snake is a symbol ofepistemic transgression, of the
choice of knowing instead ofkneeling, represents the first

(20:33):
rupture of inherited certainty,the first step towards the
prometheic fire of conscience.
His speech is not serpentineseduction, it is dialectical
invitation.
Eva responds, not withsubmission but with courage.
The result is not ruin, it isawakening by silencing the snake

(20:57):
.
The dogma silences theinvestigation.
By vilifying the question, itpreserves the cage.
But where the snake crawls, thedialectic awakens.
In the tremor of the tongue, inthe torsion of this forbidden
grammar, the illusion of thegarden begins to dissolve and in
its place a fire thatilluminates not Eden but exile.

(21:20):
Investigating is disturbing,disturbing is risking.
In the risk freedom begins.
And where freedom begins, oLogos fala Não como comando, mas
como conversa.