I know it's not biblical. Soooo.... would you freak out if someone used it as a fantasy concept? I've been recently fascinated with the idea of having two people who are the same person sort of thing, and reincarnation is one way to do something like that. A lot of Arthur returns stories involve him being reincarnated.

Have at it.

I would freak out.

But seriously, I have a whole list of things relating to human life that I won't write, and reincarnation is one of them. Death (Biblical death, as in the separation of the soul from the body) occurs once, and there is no coming back, in any way, shape or form. This is vitally important because of what Christ did for us. If there is a way to defeat death without Him, what is the point?

My extremely blunt and opinionated two cents.

Ditto above.

There's some things I don't think it's wise to touch, even in fantasy. I don't think a Christian's gift of creativity licenses us to play with concepts that might give the wrong idea about what we believe as Christians. There's nothing within a fantasy novel that spells out what the author believes is true to the real world, and what isn't. Some people are confused about reality and non-reality... this is true of all non-Christians (most Christians, being fallible we have wrong ideas about things), but especially those of Eastern religions. These religions are becoming stronger and stronger in the West. We should be trying to clear the mist, not thicken it.

Another blunt and opinionated two cents. I'm really interested in the topic, though.

But to answer your question, yeah, I would freak out.

I would disapprove of reincarnation in its precise sense, for the reasons Cassandra detailed above.

However, I would love to discuss your idea further. There are other possibilities that would allow you to do what you're thinking of, I'm sure. It would be a fun idea to explore. Care to tell me more about your idea?
Here or over pm, as it's off-topic here.

*Agrees with all the above, especially what Cassie said about misting things up.*

Hm... I'm not sure what I believe on this topic...

*subscribes to topic*

* ponders * I...have a question... Can I ask a question? (Yes... I realize I'm asking a question by asking if I can ask a question. Just go with it. )

All right. So pretty much everybody here agrees that they would totally freak out if they read a book with reincarnation in it (* timidly raises hand to be included in said group of freaking out people *), but I'm sort of conflicted as to...why exactly they would freak out.

All of y'all are Fantasy writers, right? How many of you have magic or a magic-like source in your world? How many of you write in a world you made up? How many of you have some sort of mythical creature that could never exist in our world in your world? Did I get everybody to raise their hand at least once?

So then, I have a question... Can somebody give me a really good, really long, really logical, really believable debate why we wouldn't include reincarnation in our books just because it is something that can't and shouldn't be attempted or believed in by Christians when we have other aspects of things that are fake or otherwise real and also can't and shouldn't be attempted or believed in by Christians?

A simpler version of my question:

What exactly is bad about reincarnation, beyond blurring the lines and being obviously impossible? Don't we have things in our novels that could be accused of blurring the lines? That actually really are impossible?

Now, I'm not saying reincarnation isn't bad... I'm just pointing out that if it's bad to write, I'm not gonna say it's bad to write about until I have a solid debate as to why. I don't like labeling stuff as impossible to write until I have a very firm reason, anyways.

My personal conviction is that I would never write about reincarnation, because I see no need to put it in a book. There are many different ways I could do something like what Katie described without having to bend my convictions to fit my storyline. That said, I also probably wouldn't burn a Christian book if it had reincarnation in it... I would give the author the shadow of a doubt that they thought thoroughly and logically before adding it into their book and eventually decided that it served a Biblical and morally based purpose.

Bethany Faith

Or just returning from Avalon.

I wouldn't freak out any, though I wouldn't use it in fantasy. If I did it, it would be in SF, involving paradoxes, time travel, etc.

Very good questions, Bethiness. I guess I feel like I answered Biblically why in in my first post, but if that wasn't clear enough, I could always attempt a monster post.

You did answer biblically. So did Cassandra... I just like things to spelled out to me in a thousand words or more. Monster posts are beautiful things.

*may be back later for monster post*

Haha, I like what Bethany said.

I did find a way to use my idea without using reincarnation... it's my current Nano Novel. Anyone who wants to know what I did, just ask. I was very stuck on it for a long time, and reincarnation was one of the ideas I tentatively considered. I was actually surprised that I thought of it, but it fit the purposes so well. My solution mirrors it so well, however, that my character even asks "Do you believe in reincarnation?"

Bethy and others - If you're interested in my monster-post-long-answer to your question about bending rules in fantasy worlds, you can read this: http://www.aubreyhansen.com/2011/10/of- ... -laws.html I used magic as the primary example, but it applies to anything that isn't acceptable or isn't possible in this world.

I personally wouldn't freak out if a fantasy world (so long as it was distinctly a fantasy world, not this world) had an element like reincarnation. However, I would question the value of such a premise. If it's too overbearing or "weird" I wouldn't read it, because it would make me uncomfortable to mull over it. If, however, it was subtle, it's something I would warn people about in a review.

I think Sir Emeth does something similar to reincarnation in his Ithelak-Alronia world. I can't remember the details but I kind of had that in the back of my mind when I wrote this.

He does. I can't explain it though. I get confused.

*really really really wants to know what Vanya did*
Will you tell me?

Good question, Bethy!!

It's one that occurred to me as I posted, only I didn't have time to reply. Will attempt one, but I fear it won't be a monster.

What exactly is bad about reincarnation, beyond blurring the lines and being obviously impossible? Don't we have things in our novels that could be accused of blurring the lines? That actually really are impossible?

I think the difference is actually pretty simple. Unlike other fantasy elements, reincarnation tampers with who we are as humans. The Bible states that we are made in the image of God, important in His sight, and that upon death our choice of eternal life or death is sealed. Reincarnation ultimately comes down to a 'circle of life' that is pantheistic in nature and totally against the Bible. Also, it has no 'limits'. Once you toy with the concept of reincarnation, there's nothing stopping author or reader from playing with the Hindu idea that one can work 'upwards' through a series of reincarnations and finally attain perfection... or finally become so low that one is reincarnated in the form of a beetle, or any other concepts involving reincarnation. It opens a door that shouldn’t be opened. In essence, I believe it's trivializing mankind... playing with lies that are really challenging today’s world.

So my point is, playing with reincarnation toys with who we are... and that's more powerful than playing with what the world is. Toying with the truth about mankind is the one thing fantasy should not do.

I’m afraid this is rather strong but I don't write this in condemnation of anyone who uses the concept of reincarnation. After all, I've no idea how they used it. So this is how I stand, but I'm really interested in any replies, thoughts and descriptions of how it's been used.

Does your opinion change if it's an exception rather than the norm? Is there a difference in having reincarnation be the way your world works and having something unusual happen to the character that causes him to be reincarnated for a specific purpose?

You mean like the God-figure in a world? Or some other high power? A good power or an evil power?

I... ...suddenly realize how confusing what he did is.

*summons the Dark Lord*

* responds to summoning *

For those of you who want to read the long, detailed version of how I do reincarnation, here is the thread.

The short version is that I break up each person's life into three segments, each of which is lived out in a separate universe. To go from one universe to the next, initiating your next stage, you have to die. So each person dies three times, with the last time ushering them into the spiritual world just like in the familiarworld.

That's the premise, and it resolves itself into a ton of fascinating logical consequences, which I talk about in the thread.

As for other forms of reincarnation... it really depends on what you call reincarnation.

The 'normal' form in religions in the familiarworld generally involve a never-ending cycle of death and new life, transforming into a new form each time, often with a hierarchy of desirable and undesirable things to become and a karma system.

But like with anything else in fantasy, we can fiddle. The basic idea of reincarnation is that you get another life after you die before you go on to heaven. It doesn't have to be infinite, you don't have to come back as something other than a human, it doesn't have to be based on merit, there doesn't have to be a hierarchy, or anything like that.

Once you look at it that way, all your reasons for reincarnation completely vanish. There's no reason not to, if you do it right.

And for the record, J.R.R. Tolkien used reincarnation quite a bit. It's a central component of Middle Earth, actually.

* is a very happy question-asker * * loves mini-monster posts, blog posts, and things Emeth says *

*realizes suddenly that there's a blog post she's been working on for entirely too long that touches on this subject*

Of course now that I have mentioned it, I'm sure pokes will be forthcoming. *considers withdrawing the information*

Precisely, which is my point. Not all reincarnations are equal.

If I used a form of reincarnation it would be something strange; something abnormal. Instead of dying, a character was reborn. Very like King Arthur.

Perhaps an evil witch put a spell on him. Perhaps he made a mistake. As a plot tool I'm thinking of it as an alternative to time travel. A person has knowledge and skills from the past in the present. A bit different from the typical Eastern version of reincarnation.

Now that is a cool idea... someone is born with the entire memory of someone who died centuries ago, even though they are completely individual people.

I just wanted to say that this was a wonderful post, Cassandra. I think you explained your point well and made a good distinction between altering the world and altering humanity. While I'm not sure if I agree, I deeply respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it.

Thanks Phillli, I appreciate that.

Actually, having read Jay's post, I'm actually not sure if what I said applies just here. As he said, one can fiddle, until 'reincarnation' really resembles little what we immediately think of with the word reincarnation.... it almost 'grows' another meaning.

I still hold to the basic jist of my post. Among strong, Biblical Christians, I think playing creatively with most concepts isn't a problem (whether reincarnation is one I haven't thought out). My concern is that even if we do write for such Christians, those less strong as well as non-Christians will still read our books... that that's is kind of getting to another topic.

@Vanya--at this stage, I don't think it changes anything. But I'll keep thinking it over and watching the thread.

*likes Jay's reincarnation thing*


I heard that!

Withdrawing the information would now be futile because I have already found out.

*poke, poke, poke...*

While it applies to other topics besides reincarnation, that is a very good point. I thought of this in response:

Thank you Philli. But I'm not 100% sure what you mean by these verses--forgive me. I believe I'm on the right track, but could I ask for clarification?

Yes -precisely, Phili. I heard a sermon on that just recently.
What's she's saying is basically what you're saying, Cass. We may understand the subtle difference between the rights and wrongs of reincarnation, but we don't want to tempt weak or non-believers because they don't understand. We dont want to mislead anyone. That's the gist of it. This example uses meat offered in sacrifice, the preacher I heard it from offered the example of using grape juice for communion in order not to tempt some recovering alcoholics in the congregation. We are saying that we don't want to mislead people into thinking that reincarnation is true in the sense that the world thinks of it today -a never-ending cycle.

That was a bit jumbled; I hope you can understand.

Hebrews 9:27
King James Version (KJV)
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Reincarnation is not Biblically acceptable.
God bless,
Joel ><>.

Plain as day! I got your meaning exactly.

*nods* That's what I thought Philli was saying... but I wasn't sure if she was saying it in agreement or disagreement.

Wow, there are a lot of replies to this already, and it seems like lots of them hit my "must reply ..." button.


This is true in principle, but ...
1. We have several examples in the Bible of dead people coming back to life, with Lazarus as the most notable example (though there's a famous science fiction novel whose title I'm drawing a blank on, in the after-the-atomic-wars subgenre, that, I'm told, includes Lazarus as an unwillingly immortal character because "it is given to man to die once ..." and he's used up his one death already) but going back at least to the time of Elisha (2 Kings 13:20-21).
2. And also, strictly speaking, "reincarnation" is not "defeat[ing] death", as the new body will also die. The part of the "it is given to man to die once ..." passage that it arguably contradicts is the next phrase: "... and afterwards to face judgment."
3. And, on the gripping hand, physical resurrection and eventual immortality is but the least part of what Christ's work does for us. Without it, we are already dead, spiritually dead, and salvation makes us spiritually alive and begins to bring us to full spiritual life.


The trouble is that, apparently, it's not "obviously" impossible, because there are millions---no, billions of people who would insist that it's the way the world works.


Depending on what "Avalon" means, that may actually be "reincarnation". If "Avalon" is the name for a place like "Elfland" or "Underhill" where time goes all ... wonky ... and you can sleep for a night and wake up a hundred years later or live for fifty years and step out with only a week having passed, then yes, that's usefully distinct from reincarnation. But if you mean the physical island (which I believe actually exists ... though can any British HWers correct my extremely rough geography on that point?) on which he was (most of the legends say) buried, his body is almost certainly entirely rotted by now, so our two choices are resurrection ("raising up again") and reincarnation ("re-bodying" or "re-en-fleshing").

I agree with Sir Emeth wholeheartedly, except that I did not know about elvish reincarnation in Tolkien's Middle Earth. And I find his three-world system fascinating. (By the way ... tangentially ... what's the proper adjective form of "Ithelak-Alronia"?)


Whether that's even possible (logically possible, i.e. conceivable, I mean) depends on the nature of personhood and identity (in what they consist), which is one of the "enduring questions" we looked at in my (college) freshman philosophy course.

In my own work, I have a few more-or-less-minor details that are arguably forms of reincarnation. First is that the Vaynar (angel-equivalents) cannot be permanently killed until their last God-appointed task is finished. They (that is, their bodies) can be killed (which is in practice not-quite-impossible anyway), but they usually appear instantly somewhere else (at full strength). Second, more worryingly (from the positions taken above), in the bits of my Shine Cycle that take place in our universe, I want to do a lot of legends-based-somewhat-in-fact worldbuilding flourishes, with some of the characters having appeared in different legends under different names (like Helen of Troy, Rhiannon ferch Hyfedd, and Guinevere being the same person) and then turning up later. This would seem to occasionally require someone (usually someone not-quite-entirely-human) to be re-incarnated ... which is, as we've concluded, an at least potential problem, depending on how it's handled.

I believe Beth meant totally unbiblical and therefore obviously impossible to Christians. But those who do not acknowledge the Bible will of course not recognize this.

Very good thoughts, kingjon.

Ithelak-Alronia-Cordime is Jay's world... he has a sub-forum in Realms Beyond that tells more about it here. (Actually three worlds, hence the hyphens.)

The funny thing is that I started off very reluctant to even present this idea but the more I read everyone's response, the less hesitant I become about possibly using one of my vague Idea Fish one day. It seems to me that, like many dubious aspects of speculative fiction, it's all in the presentation. Especially in Scifi I think I could pull it off without offending most people. (I say most, because someone, somewhere, will always object.)

That's possible, but I certainly didn't get that from the context. (If that's what was meant, a clarification was certainly necessary; personally, I'd reserve an unclarified "obviously impossible" for such things as unassisted human flight.)


I know that (having read most of his sub-forum); the reason I asked was that I was going to write something like "the Ithelak-Alronian progression" and then realized that, as these aren't English names the way to form the single-(compound-)word adjective meaning "of or relating to Ithelak-Alronia" probably isn't the standard way of forming such adjectives in English.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the resurrections in the Bible.

I have very -- odd views on those. I've never heard anyone else say this, but based on Scriptures such as the one Joel noted, I don't believe that Lazarus (or others) were actually resurrected in the sense I was talking about.

Man tends to define death as a cessation of vital bodily functions -- breathing, pulse, etc. However, the biblical view of death is the separation of the soul from the body. I can give verses if anyone wants them, though I'd have to dig them up, and they will make appearances in my blog post.

Therefore, I don't believe that the death of Lazarus and others who were "resurrected" was biblical death, but merely medical death. Since it clearly says that it is appointed unto men once to die.

That makes Christ's death all the more special and remarkable and awe-inspiring.

He was the only man to be resurrected in the body once He had truly died.

That's my idea anyway, based on Scripture.

*waits for people to jump all over her*

(Reordering the bits I'm going to reply to slightly, so as to get my concurring noises out of the way first.)



I don't think there's any disagreement here about that.



For the Shunamite woman's son, and the man who came to life when his body was thrown into Elisha's tomb, and the resurrections performed at the apostles' prayers, I think you may have a fairly good case that they were medical vs. "real" death. And there's not really enough evidence in the case of the "tombs that were opened" at Jesus' death, which we read about in Matthew 27:52-53, to clearly say. But I think Jesus deliberately arranged the resurrection of Lazarus to forestall precisely your argument. Remember, the relatives objected to opening the tomb because the body had already begun to olfactorily (or whatever the word is ...) decay, enough that it was obvious to the most hardened skeptic that there was no longer any soul inhabiting the body---so what Jesus did could not be called merely yet another demonstration of his healing powers, but had to be resurrection.


The one thing about Jesus' death and resurrection that I note is that he is the only man to have ever resurrected himself. He laid his life down, then after three days took it up again. Everyone else who has ever come back to life has been raised by God, usually at the prayer or command of a prophet or apostle.

(And, by the way, this sort of miracle didn't end with the apostolic age---on Easter a couple of years back my local newspaper printed an editorial by a local pastor about a woman he had met in India---if I recall correctly---whose apparently-dead body was about to be cremated when she came back to life.)

Relatively off-topic elaboration on pronunciation of my three worlds and their adjectival forms: Ithylak is the noun (or Ithelak, I use both, with emphasis on the first syllable). Itheilak (emphasis on the second syllable instead the first, with a long 'a' as in w/eigh/) is the adjective. That's the strictly accurate sense. But it isn't wrong to anglicize it and say Ithylakian or something.

Alroni is the adjective of Alronia (the i being a long 'i' as in b/ee/). But I use Alronian more often.

Cordimic (core-deem-ick) is the adjective of Cordime (core-dee-muh).

At least for now, until I change the languages again.

When you get into things like that, it gets to where it's really a doctrinal difference, rather than a fundamental difference, if that makes sense. Meaning it's like the difference between a post vs. pre trib viewpoint, rather than the difference between salvation by works vs. by grace. Thus, if your book picks hairs over that kind of thing, it's definitely a Christian book: no one but a Christian would write it that way. So I doubt it should ban any Christian from reading it.

What I meant was, she was speaking as a Christian to Christians, and we all accept that the concept of reincarnation is unbiblical and therefore obviously impossible.

*ponders on Jay's wise words* I like. But I'm still concerned for previously posted reasons.

Yes, what Cassandra said - since her clarification is far more eloquent than mine, haha.

Though, that was bad wording on my part. I should have phrased it better. My bad.

Yes, caution is always advised. But the way we do caution is determined at the thematic level of story planning, not at the concept level.

Caution is not only advised, but is vital, on every level of storytelling.

We're dealing with the laws and order of the Creator, King and Judge here. It's not something to ever be messed with lightly.

Sorry if I sound blunt or harsh. While I would not condemn anyone who used reincarnation in their books, I could never advise it, and would never, ever write it.

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply, kingjon, I will ponder that -- although I did take that into account about Lazarus when I decided on my belief. I may be back later.

Why do I miss all the good conversations when I’m gone. *huffs *

Oh well, I’m not going to say much, ya’ll are saying plenty already without me. I just wanted to say this:



Cassandra, this is why I love you. *smiles * I always love where you are coming from, even when we have had disagreements in the past. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

What exactly is bad about reincarnation, beyond blurring the lines and being obviously impossible? Don't we have things in our novels that could be accused of blurring the lines? That actually really are impossible?

I do not, actually, have things in my novel which blur the lines. Any form of fantastical thing is rooted in logic, or is genetic ability. It is not a power or magic. I specifically designed it this way because of my stance on magic.


And Tolkien is not the example, guys. Just wanted to point that out. Just ‘cause Tolkien did something, doesn’t mean I would. He and I disagree on some things, anyways. Despite the fact I look up to the man.

Right, we don't want to idolize him. I just wanted to point him out as an example of someone with Christian reincarnation.

My post was in agreement to yours, Cass, and Aldara expounded on it well.

Cool! I'm sorry about that, just wasn't sure where you were coming from and didn't want to assume anything.

*smiles* Same, Airi.

*desperately wants to read Airi's book*