How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[wynn]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

Please discuss.

[lightgigantic]

Satire has a necessity to be more absurd than what it sets out to satirize

[kx000]

Please discuss.

Fraggle, f you don't believe in Spaghetti Monster then don't make a ass of yourself. It is easy to offend like that. My stance on FSM is he needs to be stopped at all costs!

[Sarkus]

Please discuss.

Rather depends on why one initially considers the FSM and/or the Christian God absurd.
If the key points that one views as such are similar in both cases then it could be argued that they are similarly absurd, or similarly not absurd.
Differences in absurdity can only come from the differences in concept or context, not their similarities.

Satire has a necessity to be more absurd than what it sets out to satirize

No it doesn't.
Satire is merely the holding up of human shortcomings to ridicule.
Exaggeration of the absurdity might be a tool employed by the satirist to do this, but it is not a necessity.

[lightgigantic]

No it doesn't.
Satire is merely the holding up of human shortcomings to ridicule.
Exaggeration of the absurdity might be a tool employed by the satirist to do this, but it is not a necessity.

Perhaps that would make sense if satire was indistinguishable from that which it sets out to satirize.

Of course the characterizing feature is what satire juxtaposes against in order to lend meaning to as a genre.

In all cases what it juxtaposes against is something absurd.

IF it was otherwise the FSM would be commonly understood as a pastiche as opposed to a parody

[spidergoat]

It's not satire, FSM is real. If you disobey, you will find yourself in the sea of hot tomato sauce for eternity.

[lightgigantic]

It's not satire, FSM is real. If you disobey, you will find yourself in the sea of hot tomato sauce for eternity.

Just imagine Sarkus's dilemma then of not only disobeying the FSM but also the standards of satire and parody

[spidergoat]

I'm sure Sarkus would not dare to disobey his noodley master.

[Sarkus]

Perhaps that would make sense if satire was indistinguishable from that which it sets out to satirize.

No, it makes sense if you know what satire is.

Of course the characterizing feature is what satire juxtaposes against in order to lend meaning to as a genre.

In all cases what it juxtaposes against is something absurd.

IF it was otherwise the FSM would be commonly understood as a pastiche as opposed to a parody

You're conflating differing tools open to the satirist as though they are one.
Juxtaposition is different to exaggeration, which is different to parody etc.
And not all juxtaposition, exaggeration or parody is satirical.

The point therefore remains that exaggerating/increasing the absurd is not a necessity of satire - as you stated previously with "necessity to be more absurd".
Much of satire merely holds up a mirror to the pre-existing absurdity, with no need to exaggerate it.

Just imagine Sarkus's dilemma then of not only disobeying the FSM but also the standards of satire and parody

Given your assessment of necessary constituents of satire...

[Sarkus]

I'm sure Sarkus would not dare to disobey his noodley master.

He and I have an understanding.

[lightgigantic]

I'm sure Sarkus would not dare to disobey his noodley master.

too late I'm afraid

[wynn]

Much of satire merely holds up a mirror to the pre-existing absurdity, with no need to exaggerate it.

Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder.

[wynn]

IF it was otherwise the FSM would be commonly understood as a pastiche as opposed to a parody

Well, I consider FSM a pastiche.

I do not think that hostile/militant criticism or ridicule can actually lead to wholesome and lasting change, so I see no wholesome justification for satire or parody. They may surely be entertaining to some people / sometimes, a show of one's literary prowess, but beyond that, they are have no power to change people's lives for the better.

[lightgigantic]

No, it makes sense if you know what satire is.

perhaps that would make sense if you could provide an example of satire that doesn't utilize juxtaposition

You're conflating differing tools open to the satirist as though they are one.
Juxtaposition is different to exaggeration, which is different to parody etc.
And not all juxtaposition, exaggeration or parody is satirical.

all satire require juxtaposition - its what distinguishes it from the object it is satirizing ... or even a pastiche for that matter

The point therefore remains that exaggerating/increasing the absurd is not a necessity of satire - as you stated previously with "necessity to be more absurd".

yet god can be a meat ball and hell can be tomato sauce, eh?

Much of satire merely holds up a mirror to the pre-existing absurdity, with no need to exaggerate it.

correction

None of it is

Feel free to provide an example if you think otherwise.

[Jeeves]

How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

The Christian - and before that, Hebrew - god had its roots in a tribal identity and accompanied that tribe through its early history, its struggle toward nationhood, its cultural development. It had a deep and personal meaning for those people. Later, through many personality adjustments and additions that made it meaningful to a variety and succession of European congregations, the character of Jehovah accompanied Christians on their world-conquest. Such a character is not absurd at all. Terrifying, yes. Destructive and very often evil, yes. Not absurd.

In contrast, the FSM is a cartoon; a figure invented all at once, entirely for satire, that has never been used to frighten or condemn or torch anyone. It this, it is perhaps a comforting idea, as well as a distorting mirror: its absurdity is used not only to deflate the Jehovah character, but to defang it.

[Robittybob1]

Fraggle, f you don't believe in Spaghetti Monster then don't make a ass of yourself. It is easy to offend like that. My stance on FSM is he needs to be stopped at all costs!

For the benefit of an innocent Christian what is the FSM? I assume the M stands for Monster.

[wynn]

For the benefit of an innocent Christian what is the FSM? I assume the M stands for Monster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[GeoffP]

Please discuss.

Because it's a knowing, willful fabrication. It's not relevant.

[wynn]

Because it's a knowing, willful fabrication. It's not relevant.

But do you agree that the Christian God is absurd?

[spidergoat]

Well, I consider FSM a pastiche.

I do not think that hostile/militant criticism or ridicule can actually lead to wholesome and lasting change, so I see no wholesome justification for satire or parody. They may surely be entertaining to some people / sometimes, a show of one's literary prowess, but beyond that, they are have no power to change people's lives for the better.

It is actually an argument against God. Since the evidence in favor of FSM is the same that is in favor of God, they can both be said to be equally true. It goes beyond mere parody.