so, i noticed a very specific point in the narrative of the garden

now, to propose a dogmatic christian argument which may be brought up, and strike it down to only allow actually possible avenues of thought

>eve was created from adams rib, therefor she is of his flesh and is to follow the same rule[singular] set down by god for adam
and to a similar point:
>as a married couple, they are the same flesh, the same being, and are subject to the same law of god as eachother.

this is a fact of the physical, material existance, which god is above, and knows everything about; which isnt to say that those points are valid.
but those points arent valid, in that if either of those proclamations were desired to be by god, he merely would have told eve as he told adam to stay away from those fruits,
and also, married couples being flesh is only stated by ADAM, in reference to his affection for eve, not by god
and as much as well, adam could have told eve, if he thought as much, not to eat the fruit as well, and eve probably would have stayed away, even if not commanded by god, just to please her husband adam, knowing he could not partake of the fruit.

and yet, eve stays oblivious to a rule that does not need to, nor is it implied to, be in effect for her, and so does something she is allowed to do, not knowing it is banned from her husband, and so offers it to him as well, who partakes as well, yet against the directions of the lord.

so the true moral of the garden of eden story is not "women are evil and worship the devil"
its "the devil will tell people to do what they can, dont do the same thing if you arent supposed to" i guess??
or, more likely, the story was always meant to mean "don't listen to women, you'll always get into trouble."

Someone has already thought of this, OP:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48931/who-told-eve-about-the-fruit

here, in the very first story of the bible narrative, we have an example of an action of this "divine, ultimate creator" where we must question his motives in sending BOTH adam and eve from the garden, when only ONE of them was actually forbidden from conducting the action which they both conducted.
>unless he just kicked them out for not staying naked, which in that case we dont need to question anything anymore.

>>18910428
none of the answers there really argue to the point of eve following a rule recited to her by a man, when the rule was given specifically to that man before she was created.
i mean, can an all-present all-powerful god not even be asked to at least tell his rules to everyone individually?

>>18910455
religion would work a lot better if we all heard a voice like a week after our birthdays, each time telling us the same rules that we must always follow, and we all heard the same rules.