From d7433e7c60087614c7a5950d8816b05fba640e86 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Camil Staps
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:45:34 +0100
Subject: 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.
---
 discussion-week-2.tex | 12 ++----------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

(limited to 'discussion-week-2.tex')

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}
 
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

