I don't really see why not...I think Gandalf was similar to your Phoenix. I think it was fine for Gandalf because we really just don't know a lot about angels in real life, you just have to decide if it's within God's nature to allow it (which is no small thing, pray about it and ask Him for wisdom!).

*nods* That's along the lines of what I was thinking.

Really? I never knew that about Gandalf! That's cool! Anyways, continue on with the topic!

(Reviving a slightly moribund topic again ...)

While Gandalf in Lord of the Rings (and the similar thing I do with the angel-equivalents in my work, the Vaynar) is technically, etymologically, reincarnation (re-bodying), on reflection I think it's more an example of resurrection, especially since in LotR there is (apparently, as discussed above) one form of reincarnation already, and this is something distinct and different.

What would be the difference between reincarnations and having imago deic animals, from a Biblical point of view? The Bible says that people do not reincarnate, but he also says that animals don't have the image of God. If we can change one, why could we not change the other as well?

I think some people get hung up on what we mean by "reincarnate"...but I agree, I see no reason we couldn't have some creatures that could come back to our fantasy world in a new body--we have to make provision for this to happen and still work with what we know of God's nature, of course, but it can be done, I believe.

My dad pointed out something very interesting to me the other day about fantasy. He said that magic in a fantasy world is not witchcraft because the world could be made for that magic. Like in Narnia. More like cobha. It's a natural thing in that world. It's fantasy, so it's allowed to be different from things in our world. But if you then took that magic and put it in our world, it would be witchcraft because it's not natural here. It's not cobha. It's not part of our world as it might be in a fantasy world.

I think the same could apply to this theory. While I'm not sure what I think about the regeneration of creatures and such, I think that if we keep it to the fantasy world by itself, then it's fine. But if we cross it over into the real world, that's where it might be more problematic. Even in the real world, though, we do have some play room in fiction... but... I don't know... it seems like maybe more of a fine line when we bring it to the real world? Does that make sense? I hope that's helpful. Again, I'm not totally sure where I stand on this. But I think that makes sense.

It makes sense Nemo. I even agree with you, but DON'T TELL ANYONE. ;-)

From my perspective, reincarnation and other similar issues (such as the one you bring up) fall under the general principle of "responsible freedom"---a Christian author may (is free to) portray (speculate about) routine human reincarnation, or animals bearing the image of God, or nearly anything else. The question is whether the author should do so---whether we should exercise that freedom. The thing about reincarnation is that billions of people believe it, so using it in a story could be dangerous. Not so many people believe that animals are made in the image of God, so it's at least differently dangerous to write about a world in which they are.
(As an aside, I'd say that Lewis did that in Narnia---much like Tolkien, if the Tolkien experts on this forum are right, included reincarnation in his Middle Earth, just not for Men.)

Welll...not many people believe that animals are made in the image of God – per se. But many many believe that animals are just as important if not more important than humans.

I think that a lot of things that we write are dangerous when we are a fantasy writer...you are right. But I see no reason to believe that reincarnation would be wrong to write about, or even inadvisable if done with a correct perspective. If I used reincarnation, it would be very different from what the pagans that I have heard of believe. It would be Christian reincarnation.

Tolkien did it.

/thread