"let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" is a quote that's used over and all over the place for various agendas. It could be used as an excuse to be exempt from punishment. It could be an indication of collective guilt. It could be used against people making judgments on other people. It could simply be a way of saying that we all have flaws or we have all done wrong things.

Most people don't even know the origin of the term. Before I get into breaking things apart, let me tell you that I know how this passage came to be. It's Gospel of John 7:53-8:11

Now let me present you an alternative scenario. What if Deadpool was there?

Jesus Christ:  "The one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone."

[A figure comes from behind and whacks Jesus with a boulder]

What would that say? Is that a backfire? The term is supposed to invoke guilt. So is Deadpool without sin or simply without the guilt of it? Does the lack of sin give authority/permission for someone to commit the sin of hurting someone? Is that process of stoning free from sin if a person without sin cast that stone?

I'll tell you one thing that is for sure. A postmodernist who send a Deadpool against Jesus manage to do....... or more accurately manage to avoid one thing; What's right and wrong? What's sin? What's virtue. Instead of answering this, postmodernism can go around poking holes around an argument.

"The one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone." is a quote that should make us ask what is sin? and have I committed any? It should be a moment to grow. But with the help of post-modernism, we can create derivative discussions that avoid the whole growth part.

 

The bait is the means
To get the fish where you want it;
Catch the fish
And you discard the bait.
Words are the means
To get the idea where you want it;
Catch on to the idea
And you forget about the words.

— Zhuangzi  

If you follow words, all you'd be finding is more words. Words are nothing but symbols. What enlightenment or understanding can you find among words? Don't assume means of communication as a means of enlightenment.

Our world is full of distractions. We could go around with questions like what's the correct way to talk? What's the best gender pronoun? How many women should we have in workplace? What is our transgender quota?

We could do a little better and ask what's the meaning of acquiring money and stuff? Why not make everything more decentralized? How should we distribute wealth?

We could get philosophical and pit Deadpool against Jesus. We could say those without guilt will eventually smack down the virtuous or we could call Schadenfreude on Jesus and other moral teachers for being like gun control activists. All these things can be justified whether it's some PC blabbering or derivative philosophy. Warren Buffett once called financial derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction". Then what do we call these derivative philosophies?

To me reality begins and ends between cause and effect. It's not a simple collection of lines. It's a web like a dictionary each word being linked to another set of words. To me what really matters at the end; the bottom line is the final consequence. If our thinking and pondering doesn't contribute to anything new and merely derive value from picking apart mere symbols of existing philosophies, where would that distraction end up affecting the world?

I'll let you think about that.