Airi is working very hard on getting it ready to go to the publisher. You can ask Airi's Daddy. Well... you can't, but he'd tell you I was working hard on it.

Ooooooo, good!!

I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue, but if I did use a kind of "Reincarnation" it wouldn't be in the "Earth way", the way that is thought of by most people. If I did write it, I would do something closer to what Jay is doing and, like my magic isn't really "magic" but cobha, probably wouldn't actually be "reincarnation" but a cobha that differed from Earth reincarnation.

I hope that made sense and wasn't too repetitive.

Made plenty of sense.

That's good.

Thank you, Airi! This was in my mind but then I didn't say it! Some people who I would respect still don't always agree with me and visa versa, we should test everything ourselves by the Bible etc.

*nods * I agree. You should have spoken up, Elanor. Or maybe you were the smart one and didn't ramrod people with your opinion.

*Chuckles* Maybe I'm just too worried to speak my mind in case I offend people, which is not good. 'Tis one of my many vices.

Anyhow, *Subscribes to topic* This has proven to be a most interesting conversation!

Quite so.

I suppose I have something which could be considered a form of reincarnation, if you stretch the boundaries a long way.

When heroes die, they go to Evenfar. When villains die, they go to the place that has no name (yet). Then in the end, everyone will come back for the battle that will end all things.

Well said!

I am not saying that any opinions are wrong, but remember everyone, this is fantasy. Our beliefs are very important to us and I understand that, but if someone would like to put this in a book, I don't think that it would be a big problem as long as they understand that it is simply for a story and has nothing to do with what we believe in.

I would say that no, reincarnation is not Biblical for the most part. For it to become that, you really have to tweak the concept of reincarnation quite a bit.


When you brought up the point of King Arthur and such, I got an idea. As Christians, we realize that John the Baptist and Elijah were two very different people, yet John the Baptist is referred to as Elijah (Matthew 17:1-13). Perhaps not necessarily reincarnation, but a person bearing the same title in the same manner as this.

Misty, I think you have not come to realize that these books are a mirror of what we believe.

It's like the book Kite Runner by some guy whose name I cannot spell. He presented an opinion throughout his book on his view of injustice and it changed my perspective on it. I had to do a response to literature and doing that helped me to see his ideals clearly and now I agree with him. My ideals were changed by reading books and always will be. The question is, what are you feeding your readers? And please understand that you can't do whatever you want with fantasy just because it's fantasy. It's the same as any genre.

And to answer the question if I would be shocked if I saw this in a book:
Yes, in its raw form. I'm appalled at the devious New Age takeover in our and other cultures. It drives people into sin, demonic intrusion, and suicide by the belief that we will pass into another life. Children in India starve because others believe that the poor orphans deserve their circumstances and will simply die and come back as something else.

But if I were to see it as explained in Lord of the Rings than I would be fine with it. I trust J.K. Rowling.

Precisely - otherwise we're left with complete moral relativism.

"Well, it's fantasy, so I can do [insert something], and it's OK."

That line of thinking does not hold up.
God bless,
Joel ><>.

Oh, and thanks for making this thread, Vanya! *hugs*

And yet, it is a balancing act. I don't believe that we should seek after revenge, however, in my books, I have a character who does. I don't condone what he does, but I do portray it in my books.

You have to be careful in what you portray, but there are things that can be portrayed in books, without condoning them. Murder, lust, vengeance, drunkenness, swearing- you can portray all these things in a book, and not condone them.

Now, spiritual elements are something you have to be careful about, however, you just said you would be okay with Lord of the Rings reincarnation (You also mentioned Rowling). So obviously it can be done, in your mind, which is exactly what Misty is saying, I believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Misty, but are you not saying you feel the topic can be broached, and we shouldn't say it is a sin to deal with this, but it should be done with caution?

Fantasy does change things. I would never have a dragonish creature who possesses unusual natural abilities in a modern fiction piece, because that's not possible and tampers with what the Bible says about our world. However, I can have such a creature in fantasy.

See the balancing act?

Exactly. God's law is God's law, whether in your pretend world or the real world. Sin is sin, wherever it is found. Labeling your book "fantasy" changes nothing about the nature and the statues of the Creator and King all things.

Fascinating topic, Vanya

First of all, I have to say I really enjoyed reading all your thoughts and opinions.

And, like everyone else, I have an opinion too.
I wouldn't totally freak out, but I certainly wouldn't agree with having reincarnation itself in any book I read or write.

Why? Because, to be blunt, reincarnation is wrong. Plain and simple.

I don't think there are "different" forms of reincarnation (Which could just be my ignorant thirteen year-old self speaking, so if I'm wrong please correct me!) What I think you're saying is reincarnation, to me is just magic.

In Bryan Davis's book series, Dragons of Starlight, a dragon uses magic to take the spirits out of the promoted slaves (who are humans) and send them to the Northlands castle where they can serve the dragon king there. Even though their bodies are dead, their spirits are still alive on Starlight. They are still alive on Starlight, just without their bodies. They can be killed again when they are without their bodies, thus sending their spirits either to heaven or hell.

I don't think that type of thing is reincarnation, I think of it as magic. Does that make sense?

I hope I didn't offend any of you, and if I did I am very sorry I did so!



I agree with that point, kingjon.


God bless,
Bethany

I think you've got the spirit of it right, but I think the key issue here is relevance.

( Hi...uh, after writing the part below, I think it might sound kind of pedantic. So...I express humility ahead of time, here...the following is my opinion, and I'm not trying to state it as fact...)

I don't think God's law is necessarily God's law in fantasy. Suppose I write a fantasy novel in which Nodes redirect Tokens along Edges, and then...one Node spontaneously begins to create new Edges between itself and other Nodes and delete existing ones! (Wow--the possibilities!) God's laws are completely irrelevant to this fantasy novel, because God's laws have zero application to Nodes and Edges and Tokens. But...this fantasy novel is also completely irrelevant to us. What have Nodes and Edges to do with the human condition? We wouldn't connect to any part of it. So, the part where God's law finds its way into fantasy is precisely when we import God's stuff into our fantasy to make it relevant to us. Human beings are God's creation, so as soon as we import humanity into our fantasy, all God's related laws are intrinsically imported with it. If we start changing the concept of humanity in the fantasy, I wouldn't say it's "wrong", it's just less relevant to reality again.

Bah, nevermind, I'm spouting pointless philosophy. But this thread is great!

Edit: In conclusion, I think the Tolkienesque reincarnation is ok--it's being applied to some entity other than humans, which have a role in the universe different from humans'. This can be interesting and useful. To apply reincarnation to humans in fantasy, while not intrinsically wrong, is useless at best. And, bringing the weaker brother argument into it, it might be wrong to write it even if the concept itself is not wrong--only useless.

*nods* That is definitely not reincarnation. Reincarnation is this: A person dies, the spirit/consciousness is severed from the body and goes to the next stop in life, and then the spirit and/or consciousness comes back to Earth and inhabits another body.

In that series, the spirit was severed from the body, but didn't immediately go on to the next step. Basically the people became 'ghosts'. The people didn't exactly... die.

(Looking over this, I realize I was very confusing. Oh well, I hope this makes sense in some way. )

On the contrary, not confusing at all, Sui.

Current Score
Post that wants to be confusing: 1
Author who doesn't want post to be confusing: 1

As someone who has studied philosophy(Wow, that was one of those times that I said “Daddy, do I have to” and ended up loving it), this is a very interesting thought process. I need to digest it some more (I never take concepts at first glance) but feel honored that you described that in such a way that you caught my interest. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, I already have a very solid view on what I think about Fantasy books, I'm just going to see how this fits in with what I already strongly believe. Does it match up, or doesn't it? Now to study...

I agree, Air. Cephron, I have examined what you said very carefully, and I believe I agree.

However, whether or not I do pivots on what you mean by God's law. When I agree with you, I am defining it as God's intrinsic nature: right and wrong, good and bad. The specific manifestations of that nature are not included.

See, one could include E=MC2 in with the "law of God." One could also include the creation of Jupiter as a gas giant, or the fact that canines were designed with four legs. Or to get a bit more edgy: the fact that to be absent from the bodies in which we currently reside in this life, is to be present in either God's presence or absence for eternity with no turning back.

With my definition, one could argue that God's nature allows for our chance to choose Him, our life before eternity, to be spread across multiple incarnations or life spans (like in my mythos and Tolkien's). With the other definition, one could not. And... one could also not have griffins or centaurs or elves or any part of creation differing from ours. In which case you could have no fantasy at all, being that fantasy by definition is a creation of a fictional reality in which these things differ from our own familiarworld.

There are other spectrums and dividing lines between these two extremes, of course. And where you fall on it is up to you.

@Sui: *nods* That makes perfect sense.



Yeah, they basically did become ghosts.... Although they kinda did die after they were severed from their body because some of the dragons ate the bodies..... I hadn't realized before that that's actually really confusing!


@The Red One: Thanks for the example I think I get it now.

I'm not familiar with the particular series you're referring to, and so can't speak to its particular cobha, but:
At its core, reincarnation is re-incarnation: "bodying again". There's nothing in the word that requires the person to be dead beforehand, and certainly not that the spirit "goes on to the next stop in life" (especially since the religions that teach reincarnation believe, as far as I know, that reincarnation is "the next stop in life" ...). (Strictly speaking, "reincarnation" could even include "resurrection", as in the resurrection we shall put on imperishable bodies in place of the perishable ones we now inhabit---though we make a distinction between resurrection and reincarnation because it's a useful one.) If a book has characters leaving their bodies and inhabiting other ones, "reincarnation" is a reasonable description for this, so long as we attach sufficient contextual explanation to make clear that we're not talking about reincarnation as asserted by various Eastern religions.

*is honored that Airi and the Dark Lord have taken interest in his speculations*

...but again, I point out that I myself am not sure how much I would commit to that paragraph there. I hear and agree with Sir Emeth's point that trying to define "God's law" is not trivial. I have a thought experiment to try and pin down what I mean...and I apologize in advance for the wall of text.

Suppose we have Alice writing fantasy world A and Bob writing fantasy world B.

In world A, there are some homosexual characters--but Alice has written that the god in world A is okay with this. Me, reading this, would think-- 1) "This isn't interesting anymore...the spirituality here is disconnected from reality, and human condition there doesn't map over to mine anymore." and, separately from this, 2) "I think Alice is doing wrong here; it looks like she's just setting up a fantasy in order to bypass the wrongness of a real-life sin."

In world B, the soul of a human who dies is recycled into a newborn baby, and Bob has connected this with God's plan in some way. Me reading this, would still think "This is less interesting...human condition doesn't quite map over", and perhaps I'd mentally ignore the reincarnation part and keep enjoying the story, but I don't think I would accuse Bob of wrongdoing. He's not trying to bypass a command of God or vicariously indulge in something (at least not obviously), he's simply changed the world in a way that denies an important part of human existance, making the characters in his story--spiritually speaking--not quite human.

(Going off on that tangent, an anecdote: A friend of mine once asked me "You say it's impossible, but suppose you could give up your place in heaven for someone else--would you?". I was flustered at the time, but I later realized a decent way to answer would be this: "There is no morally correct answer to that question. For there to be a right answer, the world would have to be different, and the creature giving the answer wouldn't be quite human. I hope that, if I were that creature, I would affirm the morally correct answer--but come on, this is ridiculous! "
---I think this illustrates how moral dilemmas and moral choices (and therefore character development) can lose meaning when the character's humanity is incomplete/twisted)

Back to the thought experiment: In case A and B both, the "God's laws" being imported are the real-world spiritual properties of humans that God has given them--things like their role in the universe, their intended destiny, relationships that glorify the image of God in them, relationships that mar the image of God in them, etc. In both cases, the fantasy world itself wasn't wrong or sinful, just made less relevant by the deliberate rejection of an aspect of the characters' humanity. The stories are no longer about people like us. The sin of Alice was a real-world sin, an ungodly intention which breaches a real-world command of God and ignores a real-world property of humanity.

Maybe it sounds like splitting hairs, but I hope it shows what I mean by God's laws in this context, and why I don't have a moral problem with someone including reincarnation in a book. I guess I could summarize by saying it's permissible but not beneficial; which some others have been saying already.

* nods * I understand. You are asking good questions, and bringing up good points to discuss and muse on.

(P.S. Oh I prefer to avoid the nickname Dark Lord. )

*nods* I thought I was describing it wrong. Sorry.

The series has a process that lets a character leave his body, but they cannot enter another body. (at least... Davis hasn't done it yet... )

Well, Cassabrie did dwell in Adrian's and Jason's body at different points...with their spirits still in the bodies...but that might not count...*shrugs*

I don't think that does. Think of it this way: they are like ghosts that can pass through walls, only in this case they can pass through flesh instead of walls. If a ghost started to pass through a wall and then stopped, it wouldn't be a part of the wall (giving it consciousness), it would just be inside it.

I think the book is closer to that kind of thing. Does that make sense?

*nods* Perfect sense. Thanks Sui

God bless,
Bethany

On the topic of raising people from the dead, I always get a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach when first aid officials talk about irreversible death...Like there is such a thing as reversible death, and that humans have the power to reverse it.

I think that within a very short period of time, it can be reversed in some cases. But I'm not sure that actually counts as being dead.

Cephron, that was a fascinating explanation you wrote there. I'll have to think on that one.

There is such a thing as reversible death. The Lord may choose to drastically and dramatically show His grace and glory by reversing any death. Now, I believe He would not do this unless He had a specific purpose for A) allowing that person to die, and B) bringing them back to life. He did in our life.

My baby brother Samuel was dead for at least 8 minutes. He had no vitals. His heart was not functioning, he was not breathing, nothing. Samuel was dead. There is no getting around that. Thank God He not only burdened a Doctor's heart to not give up on our little guy (he worked over Samuel's body a full 5 minutes past protocol), but He also placed the right Doctor in the hospital (the man did not work for our hospital, he was passing through for a training day) to work over Samuel's body.

We were given 16 months with our little guy, which we are very grateful the Lord gave us. So are many other people who were impacted by Samuel's powerful testimony. God does not often choose to work this way, but when He does, he does it for a powerful reason.

Death is only reversible if God chooses it to be. He gives, He takes, He can give back.

First, I wanna say, Airi's post is amazing, that is miraculous how God made things click so your brother could live longer!

Then I wanna say, I agree that reincarnation is weird, and I don't plan on using anything resembling it. But, if I wanted something like it, I would probably work it on something other than humans, here is another example of something that is 'unbiblical' in the same sense: reading the future from the stars. In our world that is called astrology, but in Lewis' world, Narnia, it was something Centaurs had been gifted and called to do, and stars were beings that moved in ways that communicated to them. How does this apply to reincarnation? I think that Narnia's Centaurs show us how to take something we think could make a good story but isn't a good thing to write about in its current form-and change it a little so that it does line up with what we believe about God (which I think is really our base in world-building and fantasy writing) and then use that 'version' of it.

In short, I would freak out if this 'version' of reincarnation was used: "the Hindu or Buddhist doctrine that a person may be reborn successively into one of five classes of living beings (god or human or animal or hungry ghost or denizen of Hell) depending on the person's own actions"

And might think it was fascinating if someone adapted this 'version' of it: "The rebirth of a soul in a new body" and made some connections such as: this being or race has been created to last several bodies' liftimes for various reasons, and has even been gifted with being able to come back into other bodies (though I think I would prefer they keep their own identity and self through each body), or that this is an exception either because of good or evil forces.
That's my opinion at least...I hope it makes at least some sense.

God is certainly amazing.

I have a thread about astrology around here too, somewhere.

Here is the link to the astrology thread.

Well, it all depends on your definition of death, as I know I've said somewhere before in the thread, but I'm too lazy and/or busy to dig it up right now.

Real death is the permanent separation of the soul and the body.

On the other hand, so-called "reversible" death would be a purely medical death, where the heart and lungs cease to work, but for whatever reason (likely for His glory), God allows the soul to stay with the person so they can be revived.

I don't know if that helps at all, or if anyone will agree with me there, but that is my belief.

And yes, I'm still working on the blog post on this topic. The same one I've been wanting to write since I first joined, I just haven't gotten around to it...

I agree, it really depends on your definition of "death", as it is dependent on what you mean by "reincarnation".



I did not contest that point.



I think I agree with everything you said here.



Cool! Let us know when you finish, I'd like to read it. I know how it is with blogging, I don't really do it much because even when I try to, I don't.

This is a good point. Thanks!

You're welcome.

I don't think it's as clear a distinction as that. In Lewis astrology was something the centaurs were particularly gifted in and called to, and Aslan always (apparently ...) announced future events in the stars. But in our world, it's not clear that it is and has always been evil ... God used a nova (or something ...) to summon the Magi to greet the Messiah, after all. The reason we shouldn't use it is that we have far better guides.

Actually, the form of astrology Narnian centaurs practice is not really much different from what has been tried in our world. The difference is that in Narnia, it's a fairly reliable form of divine revelation, while here it's (at least since the Incarnation) an attempt to gain revelation apart from God.


Precisely; we must define our terms very carefully to make sure that we're not talking entirely past each other.


If that's how you define "death", nobody ever "dies", since resurrection is the "raising up" of the old body (even if it's been destroyed!), which is also "changed".


The thing is, though, that there's "medical death"---where the person seems dead, but then (within an, as far as I know from what few reports I've read, rather short period of time) medical treatments work and he or she proves to have been alive---and then there's what seems by all appearances to be true death (rigor mortis sets in, the body begins to smell, etc.), but then (after days) the person comes back to life again---as was the case with Lazarus and other Biblical characters, and the woman whose story was told by a local pastor in a newspaper colun on Easter Sunday a few years back. It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference between these, and the second is either "reincarnation"---"body-ing again"---or "resurrection"---"raising up again"---of some sort, not mere medical revival.

I think that whenever the Bible talks about things like astrology, it talks negatively about them, I believe Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is an example of that.
Also, I don't think a nova would have led the wise men the way that the "star of Bethlehem" did.
More on topic: It sounds like the magi were probably familiar with verses like :Numbers 24:17, from interacting with Jews in Babylon. Also, I think this could be an example of the common Grace God gives even to those that don't (necessarily, at least) trust in him yet. Suppose the magi were astrologers trying to divine the future or gain knowledge from the stars; God used the stars to lead them to Christ, he provided the "star", and gave them the idea that it meant the Christ had been born.
Besides, the star wasn't there to tell the future, but rather to announce Christ's birth, so, technically, that's different from astrology anyway.

True; that's a prohibition of a somewhat comprehensive list of ways of trying to learn or influence the future in some way other than those which God has provided (or at least of such ways that the Canaanites practiced). But what "divination" means in that passage is not at all clear; we know from other places in the Law (let alone the rest of the Bible) that it does not (necessarily) include casting lots or using the Urim and Thurim.

I'm getting something else about a "new star" confused with that. (Though there is that Arthur C. Clarke story in which an explorer finds a planet with ruins of a civilization destroyed by its star going nova, and the star turns out to be the star.) On reading the passage instead of going by memory, let me amend my "nova or something" to "the rising of a particular star".

Quite likely, but it was their system of astrology that led them to the (as it happens, correct) conclusion that "the King of the Jews" had been born then.

Yes. This is the one example in our world of astrology giving a complicated but entirely accurate result.

No, astrology is "reading the stars", just as "reincarnation" is "re-bodying", not necessarily carrying in the specific connotations any one system give it. And saying "the one who is born King of the Jews" sounds like future-prediction to me ...

Ok.

As a side note, guys. We have an astrology thread around here, also.

Yeah, sorry we got off topic, I was just trying to show the similarities of using something that is wrong here to good effect in a fantasy world.

That's okay. I was merely pointing it out because anyone looking for thoughts on astrology won't look in here for your points of view. I think you both had valuable input, and I'd hate for other people who want that input, not to be able to find it.