blob: 9d220a65e4627f3b3c332a9718fa5941a853b7eb (
plain) (
blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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}
|
