Start sum chap 4; improved discussion format

Can now add questions inline with \question; only shown when the
\ifshowquestions is set to true.
Can now add an introductory text to discussion paragraphs.

6 files changed, 64 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/discussion-week-2.tex b/discussion-week-2.tex
index 9d220a6..00b0a99 100644
--- a/discussion-week-2.tex
+++ b/discussion-week-2.tex
@@ -5,19 +5,11 @@
 
 \usepackage{geometry}
 \usepackage{dogmatics}
+\showquestionstrue
 
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
-
+\discussionintro
 \input{sum-chap-3}
-
-\section*{Discussion questions}
-The text states that speaking equivocally about God and humans we would risk not communicating any significant knowledge of God. 
-
-\begin{itemize}
-    \item Is this correct, or is it possible to communicate knowledge of God without analogies at all?
-    \item Is this a valid argument for \emph{not} speaking equivocally about God? If we agree that not speaking equivocally about God and creatures is a pitfall we must avoid, shouldn't we then simply accept that we \emph{cannot} communicate knowledge of God?
-\end{itemize}
-
 \end{document}
 
diff --git a/discussion-week-3.tex b/discussion-week-3.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..adf9406
--- /dev/null
+++ b/discussion-week-3.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
+
+\title{Dogmatics I\\\large{Discussion paragraph, week 3}}
+\author{Camil Staps}
+
+\usepackage{geometry}
+\usepackage{dogmatics}
+\showquestionstrue
+
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+\discussionintro
+\input{sum-chap-4}
+\end{document}
+
diff --git a/dogmatics.sty b/dogmatics.sty
index 2b671da..8f1c2a8 100644
--- a/dogmatics.sty
+++ b/dogmatics.sty
@@ -2,3 +2,10 @@
 \setitemize{itemsep=0pt,parsep=0pt}
 
 \renewcommand{\thesection}{Chapter \arabic{section}}
+
+\RequirePackage{color}
+\newif\ifshowquestions
+\def\question#1{\ifshowquestions{\color{red}~[#1]}\fi}
+
+\def\discussionintro{\begin{center}\emph{A summary of the assigned reading with comments and questions {\color{red}in red}.}\end{center}}
+
diff --git a/sum-chap-3.tex b/sum-chap-3.tex
index 52aefc3..54fdc84 100644
--- a/sum-chap-3.tex
+++ b/sum-chap-3.tex
@@ -38,5 +38,9 @@ It has traditionally been held that God has revealed Himself in a way suitable f
 
 We cannot speak \emph{univocally} (in exactly the same sense) about God and humans, because we cannot reduce God to the human. On the other hand, speaking \emph{equivocally} (in a completely different sense) about God we would risk agnosticism, communicating no real knowledge of God any more. \index{Analogy}Analogy seeks a middle way between the two. There is a difference between an \index{Analogy!Analogia entis}analogy of being, between Creator and creation (more related to general revelation) and an \index{Analogy!Analogia fidei}analogy of faith which reflects on special revelation. The two approaches can complement each other. Analogy always has a positive and a negative aspect: it mentions a likeness and a dissimilarity.
 
+\question{Is it correct that we can only speak univocally \emph{or} equivocally about God, or is it possible to communicate knowledge of God without analogies at all?}
+
+\question{Is this a valid argument for \emph{not} speaking equivocally about God? If we agree that not speaking equivocally about God and creatures is a pitfall we must avoid, shouldn't we then simply accept that we \emph{cannot} communicate knowledge of God?}
+
 \index{Metaphor}Metaphors are extensively used to communicate knowledge of God, but it is inherent to metaphors that they can be ambiguous.
 
diff --git a/sum-chap-4.tex b/sum-chap-4.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dfdb886
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sum-chap-4.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+\setcounter{section}{3}
+\section{A tale of two theisms}
+Christian theology presupposes God's existence. It sets out to clarify \emph{who} God is and \emph{what} He is \emph{like}, not \emph{if} He is. Generally we can consider those holding a generalised concept of God and those with a distinctive trinitarian understanding.
+
+\subsection*{Biblical foundations}
+\begin{description}
+    \item[Old Testament] Names are important\index{God!Names of} in the OT. Israelites share the common name \emph{El} with other Semitic cultures. It is combined with many other words, most often into \emph{Elohim}. But next to the general names the Israelites also have the name YHWH, with an original meaning along the lines of `I am' or `I shall be there as who I am': the name is a promise of God's presence.
+
+        Most striking in the OT is the development of \index{Monotheism}monotheism (Dt.~6:4, although originally this verse was an injunction to \index{Monolatry}monolatry, the \emph{worship} of one god). Monotheism implies \index{Universality}universality: God's love and faithfulness are not just for Israel, but extend to the whole of creation.
+
+    \item[New Testament] The NT presupposes the OT conception of God, but adds the \index{Trinity}trinitarian understanding.\question{Is it correct to ascribe the idea of the Trinity to the whole New Testament, or are there writings that do not share this idea? Did Christ have this concept? Does even Paul have this concept unambiguously?} This does not break monotheism: there is one, true Creator God, but this Creator God is the Father, Son and Spirit together.
+
+        In the NT, \emph{Theos} refers to both \emph{El} and \emph{Elohim}.\question{A proper discussion of the Greek names of God in the OT would involve the LXX.} \emph{Kyrios} is the typical translation of the tetragrammaton and means \emph{Lord} -- it is usually associated with Christ the Son. From a Christian point of view, the Trinity is the fulfilment of the promise of God's presence.
+\end{description}
+
diff --git a/summary.tex b/summary.tex
index c542108..90e28ec 100644
--- a/summary.tex
+++ b/summary.tex
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
-\documentclass[landscape,twocolumn,10pt,a4paper]{article}
+\documentclass[landscape,twocolumn,9pt,a4paper]{article}
 
 \title{An Introduction to Christian Theology\\\normalsize{Summary of the book by Plantinga, Thompson and Lundberg}}
 \author{Camil Staps}
 
 \usepackage{dogmatics}
+\showquestionsfalse
 
 \usepackage[top=2cm, bottom=3cm, inner=3.6cm, outer=3.6cm, heightrounded, marginparwidth=2cm, marginparsep=0.6cm]{geometry}
 \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
@@ -12,10 +13,12 @@
 \usepackage{array}
 
 \usepackage{marginnote}
-\reversemarginpar
 
-% Smaller font in marginpars
 \makeatletter
+% Align marginpars to inside; doesn't work yet
+%\let\oldmarginpar\marginpar
+%\renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}\if@firstcolumn\raggedleft\fi#1}}
+% Smaller font in marginpars
 \long\def\@ympar#1{%
   \@savemarbox\@marbox{\scriptsize #1}%
   \global\setbox\@currbox\copy\@marbox
@@ -25,6 +28,20 @@
 % Indexing
 \usepackage{makeidx}
 \makeindex
+% Index on same page; http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/23873/23992
+% But in next column; http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/27481/23992
+\makeatletter
+\renewenvironment{theindex}
+  {\vfill\eject\section*{\indexname}%
+   \@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
+           {\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
+   \thispagestyle{plain}\parindent\z@
+   \parskip\z@ \@plus .3\p@\relax
+   \columnseprule \z@
+   \columnsep 35\p@
+   \let\item\@idxitem}
+  {}
+\makeatother
 
 % Show index entries in the margin notes; see http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/236373/23992
 \usepackage{xparse}
@@ -64,6 +81,7 @@
 \maketitle
 
 \input{sum-chap-3.tex}
+\input{sum-chap-4.tex}
 
 \printindex