summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/discussion-week-2.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorCamil Staps2016-02-15 22:45:34 +0100
committerCamil Staps2016-02-15 22:45:34 +0100
commitd7433e7c60087614c7a5950d8816b05fba640e86 (patch)
tree6aa5a5f5faa9a25684475985030bbbcafd772d4d /discussion-week-2.tex
parentFix chap 3 (diff)
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.
Diffstat (limited to 'discussion-week-2.tex')
-rw-r--r--discussion-week-2.tex12
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 10 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}