diff options
author | Camil Staps | 2016-02-15 22:45:34 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Camil Staps | 2016-02-15 22:45:34 +0100 |
commit | d7433e7c60087614c7a5950d8816b05fba640e86 (patch) | |
tree | 6aa5a5f5faa9a25684475985030bbbcafd772d4d /discussion-week-2.tex | |
parent | Fix 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.tex | 12 |
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} |