Inclusion and incarnation: A reply to Sturch

Timothy Bayne

doi:10.1017/S0034412502006388

Inclusion and incarnation: A reply to Sturch

Timothy Bayne

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/opinion

3 Citations (Scopus)

57 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

I make three points in response to Richard Sturch's comments on my paper: I defend my interpretation of the Morris-Swinburne (M-S) account of the Incarnation; I argue that the M-S model appears to undercut the view that the unity of consciousness can be explained in terms of the self; and third, I argue that M-S model seems to entail that god has false beliefs.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	107-109
Number of pages	3
Journal	Religious Studies
Volume	39
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412502006388
Publication status	Published - Mar 2003

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1017/S0034412502006388

Publisher version (open access).pdfFinal published version, 51.7 KB

Cite this

@article{889dae7d0d124dbcbe329db79d617cc5,

title = "Inclusion and incarnation: A reply to Sturch",

abstract = "I make three points in response to Richard Sturch's comments on my paper: I defend my interpretation of the Morris-Swinburne (M-S) account of the Incarnation; I argue that the M-S model appears to undercut the view that the unity of consciousness can be explained in terms of the self; and third, I argue that M-S model seems to entail that god has false beliefs.",

author = "Timothy Bayne",

year = "2003",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1017/S0034412502006388",

language = "English",

volume = "39",

pages = "107--109",

journal = "Religious Studies",

issn = "0034-4125",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press (CUP)",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inclusion and incarnation

T2 - A reply to Sturch

AU - Bayne, Timothy

PY - 2003/3

Y1 - 2003/3

N2 - I make three points in response to Richard Sturch's comments on my paper: I defend my interpretation of the Morris-Swinburne (M-S) account of the Incarnation; I argue that the M-S model appears to undercut the view that the unity of consciousness can be explained in terms of the self; and third, I argue that M-S model seems to entail that god has false beliefs.

AB - I make three points in response to Richard Sturch's comments on my paper: I defend my interpretation of the Morris-Swinburne (M-S) account of the Incarnation; I argue that the M-S model appears to undercut the view that the unity of consciousness can be explained in terms of the self; and third, I argue that M-S model seems to entail that god has false beliefs.

U2 - 10.1017/S0034412502006388

DO - 10.1017/S0034412502006388

M3 - Comment/opinion

SN - 0034-4125

VL - 39

SP - 107

EP - 109

JO - Religious Studies

JF - Religious Studies

IS - 1

ER -

Inclusion and incarnation: A reply to Sturch

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this