Every field of studies has its own way of understanding of the language. So it is easy to see that religious language has its own different way of understanding from others. But there has clearly been a long shift of meaning between the familiar secular use of these words and their theological employment because the religious language expresses an transcendent reality which is God and the relationship between God and human. And the problem is how to understand the meaning of words which are used in the secular context when they are applied to God and the relationship between God and human. In this essay, I want to discuss about the peculiarity of religious language through two doctrine: the doctrine of analogy of Thomas Aquinas and the doctrine of the "symbolic" nature of religious language of Paul Tillich. I also want to express some problem of meaning of words after the Incarnation and make a difference between the scientific cognition and the religious cognition in languages used in these fields. I hope that all of us will have a good realization about the true meaning of religious language and be patient on the way to find out the lessons in the religious books when we read it.
The doctrine of analogy
According to the young Aquinas, there are three kinds of analogy: analogy according to Meaning but Not According to Be, analogy according to Be but Not According to Meaning and analogy according to Meaning and to Be.
For the first kind, there is the analogy according to meaning alone, and not according to be. In this case the analogogous notion, which is one intention, refers to many per prius et posterius, but it is understood as referring properly only to the primary analogate. This sort of analogy presupposes a certain interconnection among the secondary analogates and the primary analogate but what is predicated of the secondary analogates seems to remain