Initial commit; sum. chap 3; disc. 2

1 files changed, 23 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/discussion-week-2.tex b/discussion-week-2.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9d220a6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/discussion-week-2.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{article}
+
+\title{Dogmatics I\\\large{Discussion paragraph, week 2}}
+\author{Camil Staps}
+
+\usepackage{geometry}
+\usepackage{dogmatics}
+
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+
+\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}
+