Very interesting, thanks; the missing word is ‘monster’ …
Why? you might ask; when I read your post, it raised the issue of human being and it’s definitions, so here is the answer 🙂 and my favourite piece of research:
To Be or Not To Be a Human Being?
(By Randy Lee in The Christian Jural Society News.)
From Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition. ‘Human Being’ is defined as follows: ‘See monster’ . From the same dictionary, ‘monster’ is defined: ‘A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.’
This is an unusual definition, but like all Law Dictionaries on this subject, a non-definition. It only states that a ‘human being’ is a higher animal. It is not found anywhere in Scripture that a Christian Man or Woman is an animal or part of the animal kingdom. This being the case, then what exactly is a ‘human being.’
From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, ‘human’ is defined as, ‘3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)’
‘Secular’ being the important word here, we look to the multi-definitions in the 1992 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary: “Secular’ adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows.”
Could it be that ‘human’ means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two: ‘Secular humanism’ n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.” And, “‘ secularism’ n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs.”
In conjunction with this, from Collier’s New Dictionary of the *English Language, 1928. ‘humanitarian’ is defined: n. ‘a philanthropist: an anti Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ’s divinity; a perfectionist.: From the above Random House Dictionary, “humanitarianism’ is defined: n. ‘the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.’
With no definition of ‘human being’ in Law, Mellinkoff’s Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines ‘Person’ as, 1.”a human being–without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3).”
Of course, ‘morality common to human beings’ is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank, N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610A.2d652,654) it states, “For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, ‘natural person’ means ‘human being’, not artificial or juristic person”.
So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let’s take a closer look at what a ‘natural person’ is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of ‘natural person’ does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between ‘natural persons’ and ‘moral persons in a community’ in the following statement from his Institututes:… “we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons; for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations,”… (2 Inst. 669).
With ‘natural man’ being the same as ‘natural person’, we find further evidence of exactly what a ‘human being’ is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901, ” ‘Natural’ adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate.” From the same Dictionary, page 1461, ” ‘unregenerate’ 1. not regenerate; unrepentant. 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked; sinful; dissolute. 5. an unregenerate person.”
In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, ‘naturalism’ is defined as: ‘a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world, and of man’s relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed.’ and ‘naturalist’ is defined as: ‘One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.’
And, of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at
1 Corinthians 3:14, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Therefore, when a Christian calls him or herself a ‘human being’, they are saying, “I’m an animal; I’m non-religious; I’m unrepentant: I’m wicked, sinful and dissolute; I’m able to do all things and be perfect without Jesus Christ; I’m subject to man’s law, rather than God’s Law.” Randy Lee
Now you can see how much fun the cabal have been having with us …