No matter what one thinks about reduplicative canning (and I am not altogether swayed by rolig's loopy, though delightful, logic), classifying canning as sinful seems like a slippery logical slope. Because then canting would necessarily be a virtue, and decanting would be a sin. Which would mean that every time I decanted the port I would be flirting with damnation. Harsh.
On the trigonometric front, if we are to make moral value judgements about sining, where does that leave cosining and tanning. Are we to denounce all those working in the leather industry, or anyone who cosines a loan? No, I'm not buying it.
But can-canning (i.e. reduplicative canning) and sinning may, in fact, be related. Allow me to cite Irving Berlin: "She started a heat wave by letting her seat wave in such a way that the customers say she certainly can can-can." Here the "heat wave" caused by the can-canning of the woman in the lyric is, clearly, a not-so-subtle reference to what one may argue is, at least, a pre-sinning state or even, to be sure, a sinning one, if we accept the Gospel dictum that lustful thoughts are themselves sinful. Hence, reduplicative canning may in fact possess a relation of causality with regard to non-reduplicative sinning.
But I don't think you can parse it that way. And why would you want to? Obviously, omnipotence and omniscience are not equivalent; they are different concepts. The question is, does one presume the other?
I agree, rolig, that omnipotence implies (at least the capacity for) omniscience. The converse, however, is false. (Consider Cassandra.) Ruzuzu's statement, parsed as claiming the two ain't equivalent, therefore still stands.