☦︎𝕬𝖗𝖈𝖍-𝕸𝖆𝖌𝖚𝖘 𝕸𝖆𝖌𝖓𝖚𝖘☦︎ @VVarlockish

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok No you absolutely did jot read everything I typed. I covered ehy the two things are not the same and you didnt know. You didnt read it.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock I also covered that.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok You just "no u" and think that is a real argument. I explained how reversing it doesnt work. You are trolling. You cant argue what I said so youve resorted to this

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok Except that never happened on my end, tard

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock Scroll up im not repeating myself over and over and over again

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok Yeah youre trolling we get it

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock The church. Like I said earlier. Ask them. It would be the closest source than anything anyone else comes up with, since ya know... the church formulated the bible as a liturgical tool.

Your analogy doesn’t work. “Can’t fly” is an ordinary limitation of power. “Can’t sin” for a being that is essentially perfectly good is more like “can’t make a square circle” or “a triangle can’t have four sides.” It’s not a missing ability it’s the absence of a coherent action for that kind of being. Omnipotence has never meant “can do every conceivable thing, including contradictions and acts against one’s own essential nature.” It means the power to do all that is logically possible and consistent with the being’s essence. The inability to sin is no more a restriction on power than the inability to create a married bachelor. So “Smallpalm” either isn’t actually limited in the relevant sense, or the conjunction “omnipotent + repfect” is just incoherent. That doesn’t transfer to the goodness case the way you need it to. The classical position doesn’t collapse under your parody. Swapping the words doesn’t make the cases parallel. “Repfect” is an arbitrary label you invented for “can’t fly.” Nothing about the concept of flying makes flight incoherent or contradictory for an otherwise powerful being. You can coherently describe a powerful being that flies or one that doesn’t. “Perfect goodness,” by contrast, is an essential property. Sin is defined as falling short of or contradicting perfect goodness. For a being that is essentially perfectly good, the act “sin” is not a coherent task in the first place exactly like “make a square circle” or “be a married bachelor.” It isn’t an ordinary limitation of power; the description fails to pick out anything doable. That’s the difference your mirror misses. You can define a being that is unable to fly and still omnipotent in the relevant sense. You cannot coherently define a being that is essentially perfectly good and yet able to sin, any more than you can define a square that is round The practical difference is in what the terms mean, not how old the words are or who first used them. “Perfect goodness” means the total absence of moral defect or failure. Sin is defined as the presence of exactly that kind of defect. Putting both together in one and the same being (“essentially perfectly good and yet sins”) produces a contradiction. The description fails to describe any possible state of affairs. “Repfect,” as you defined it, just means “can’t fly.” Nothing in the concept of flying makes the act of flying contradictory or impossible for a powerful being. A being that flies and a being that doesn’t are both coherently describable. Adding age, religious origin, extra properties, or a longer definition to the word “repfect” doesn’t change that. It still doesn’t generate the same contradiction. You can stipulate any label you want. You cannot stipulate away the fact that some combinations of meanings are self contradictory and others are not. That is the practical difference, and it is independent of the history of the words.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok I absolutely explained why sinning and flying are not the same and you either didnt read it like im claiming or youre purposely ignoring it. So no lol

Your analogy doesn’t work. “Can’t fly” is an ordinary limitation of power. “Can’t sin” for a being that is essentially perfectly good is more like “can’t make a square circle” or “a triangle can’t have four sides.” It’s not a missing ability it’s the absence of a coherent action for that kind of being. Omnipotence has never meant “can do every conceivable thing, including contradictions and acts against one’s own essential nature.” It means the power to do all that is logically possible and consistent with the being’s essence. The inability to sin is no more a restriction on power than the inability to create a married bachelor. So “Smallpalm” either isn’t actually limited in the relevant sense, or the conjunction “omnipotent + repfect” is just incoherent. That doesn’t transfer to the goodness case the way you need it to. The classical position doesn’t collapse under your parody. Swapping the words doesn’t make the cases parallel. “Repfect” is an arbitrary label you invented for “can’t fly.” Nothing about the concept of flying makes flight incoherent or contradictory for an otherwise powerful being. You can coherently describe a powerful being that flies or one that doesn’t. “Perfect goodness,” by contrast, is an essential property. Sin is defined as falling short of or contradicting perfect goodness. For a being that is essentially perfectly good, the act “sin” is not a coherent task in the first place exactly like “make a square circle” or “be a married bachelor.” It isn’t an ordinary limitation of power; the description fails to pick out anything doable. That’s the difference your mirror misses. You can define a being that is unable to fly and still omnipotent in the relevant sense. You cannot coherently define a being that is essentially perfectly good and yet able to sin, any more than you can define a square that is round The practical difference is in what the terms mean, not how old the words are or who first used them. “Perfect goodness” means the total absence of moral defect or failure. Sin is defined as the presence of exactly that kind of defect. Putting both together in one and the same being (“essentially perfectly good and yet sins”) produces a contradiction. The description fails to describe any possible state of affairs. “Repfect,” as you defined it, just means “can’t fly.” Nothing in the concept of flying makes the act of flying contradictory or impossible for a powerful being. A being that flies and a being that doesn’t are both coherently describable. Adding age, religious origin, extra properties, or a longer definition to the word “repfect” doesn’t change that. It still doesn’t generate the same contradiction. You can stipulate any label you want. You cannot stipulate away the fact that some combinations of meanings are self contradictory and others are not. That is the practical difference, and it is independent of the history of the words.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock Yeah we are having the same issue here. Limited will is still badly defined. I dont want my things to be stolen. You can just leave out Free Will because we already understand what that is and comes with since we live in that reality. No point in redetailing it.

If youre talking about JUST the book of Job and not the bible, it would be the same process. The authors of these books had intentions and meaning when they wrote it and taught that to others who carried the teachings. That is going to be where you want to learn the interpretation, not random online reading it the first time after its been retranslated.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok You absolutely did not read the part where I covered the difference so you absolutely are a liar atp.

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock Where no one can harm anyone? Free will 100%. How would I stop people from stealing everything i have all the time?

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock The church was forming after the resurrection. You dont know what youre talking about

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock That doesnt even make any sense. The church was forming prior to the book. Ive no idea why you were just so incorrect

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok 'What makes sinning different from flying' and I verbatim explained the difference earlier. So either you forgot i answered it or you didnt read the entire post, retard

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock "Limited will is doing anything aside hurting others" So its just harm principle. All this to get to one of the stupidest entry level philosophical arguement ever thought of? Hoooly shit. Okay lets entertain it. Thats your definition great. And?

They can trace it. And they will give you the interpretation of The Church like you asked me for. Because they are taught within the church. And since the church is what formulated the liturgical tool called the Bible, then I think that answers what and where youd receive the correct interpretation

@jkbdts @EmmanuelOd1813 @ShitpostRock @grok No that is a lie and youre a liar. I never said i could not read. That was a dispute over the fact that you pretended you did not see messages that I proved you infsct did see. Youre a disgusting liar.