Interesting, I didn't know that about Taranaki. Saw it this last spring on a couple week trip across the North and South islands. Very beautiful place, but only got the chance to see it in passing as it was rainy that day. Two weeks in NZ was barely enough to see what we most wanted to see, and I forsee another trip in the next few years to see even more of New Zealand.
New Zealand Mountain Gains Personhood
- Thread starter ThereRoseaLamb
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's not an inaniminate object. It's a mountain!
It's not human. That's the point. Protected is one thing, giving it human rights quite another.
They don't have rights in the womb. If a mountain that isn't alive gets human rights, how much more should an actual human being?
No, none of those mountains were given human rights. Yes, children were killed, God didn't do that. So what point are you making there?
The point is God saw certain mountains as precious and the ones where he met Moses or the ones Jesus went up are kept and preserved as holy mountains. People knew they were standing on holy ground.
They aren't just 'inanimate objects'.
Children are killed all the time, just saying, not everyone will have a long life. Many won't survive to adulthood. That is just the fallen world we live in. If you actually make the world a better place so that children can reach adulthood without a huge amount of trauma, then thats good. Thats why children are now given human rights and able to expect to have food, shelter and to be nurtured and loved.
Unfortunatley not everyone has this or the means to provide it. We do our best to try though.
In Revelation, Jesus even said he would kill Jezebels children, and to Judas he said he shouldn't have been born. Job was also despairing that life was so hard he wished he had not been born. So there's certainly reasons and the reality that many peoples lives are cut short, even in the womb.
Even before abortion was legalised (and it also had certain stipulations) people who didn't want children found other ways to be rid of them, that were even more harmful and endangering the life of the mother, and more cruel, babies left exposed, babies drowned. babies shaken and abused so they grow up with huge trauma that takes years to heal, or growing up without a parent who can provide or love them. It's not a modern day phenomena this has been going on since Bible times.
They aren't just 'inanimate objects'.
Children are killed all the time, just saying, not everyone will have a long life. Many won't survive to adulthood. That is just the fallen world we live in. If you actually make the world a better place so that children can reach adulthood without a huge amount of trauma, then thats good. Thats why children are now given human rights and able to expect to have food, shelter and to be nurtured and loved.
Unfortunatley not everyone has this or the means to provide it. We do our best to try though.
In Revelation, Jesus even said he would kill Jezebels children, and to Judas he said he shouldn't have been born. Job was also despairing that life was so hard he wished he had not been born. So there's certainly reasons and the reality that many peoples lives are cut short, even in the womb.
Even before abortion was legalised (and it also had certain stipulations) people who didn't want children found other ways to be rid of them, that were even more harmful and endangering the life of the mother, and more cruel, babies left exposed, babies drowned. babies shaken and abused so they grow up with huge trauma that takes years to heal, or growing up without a parent who can provide or love them. It's not a modern day phenomena this has been going on since Bible times.
I hope you can understand this without assuming that people are nutcases for trying to protect a mountain that means a lot to them. Like tree huggers and people who want whales to be saved.
Babies are precious too, and deserve to have a full live and grow up in a loving environment..unfortunately, the way life is now, its very hard to do that. Especially now that people are hell bent on destroying that environment and not leaving anything for the next generations. Can your country actually support an extra population the size of Canada? China has a huge population as families are important in China, but even that country felt the need to restrict the population with the one-child policy (which was a bit of a disaster) and there's still huge amounts of infanticide.
Many people can't afford the cost of living, let alone the cost of raising a child. I don't wonder how many solo mothers are out there where the dad abandons their child and they end up living on welfare. A mother will do anything to protect their child, but some fathers aren't willing to provide or step up and be a dad and thats sad, even potential grandparents say they not willing to help out. What does that say about people. And if the health and mental health of the mother is compromised, they end up with depression and unable to look after their child anyway.
Then on the other hand you have couples that would pay thousands of dollars to have IVF. They not willing to adopt or raise someone elses child or orphans. They want to have their own or will use a surrogate to have them. I don't quite understand that but if they have that amount of money perhaps they could spare some for children already alive and in poverty so they can have a better life. Why didn't they have children when they were younger? It might not even be that. Modeen life means fertilty isn't what it used to be...our resources to look after them are not infinite. Why do people even use birth control?
So many children grow up abandoned and neglected and abused and that's shameful, especially when the abuse and neglect is done by their own parents. To have loving parents/guardians and quality of life is now a human right - because thats the humane thing to do.
If we can do the same for the rest of Gods creation and be good stewards (by law) then... isn't that a good thing? It's meant to safeguard whatever or whoever needs protecting from abuse.
Anyway the origins of legal person hood are not unique to New Zealand. It originated in the USA...so, possibly some states already have it as there are different laws in different states. If someone actually wants an abortion and they can't have it in one state they'd probably just go to another rather than give birth and have their child taken away from them. Sometimes its not actually even about a mothers right to have a child, its the child's right to have a good parent. That might be difficult to legislate.
Babies are precious too, and deserve to have a full live and grow up in a loving environment..unfortunately, the way life is now, its very hard to do that. Especially now that people are hell bent on destroying that environment and not leaving anything for the next generations. Can your country actually support an extra population the size of Canada? China has a huge population as families are important in China, but even that country felt the need to restrict the population with the one-child policy (which was a bit of a disaster) and there's still huge amounts of infanticide.
Many people can't afford the cost of living, let alone the cost of raising a child. I don't wonder how many solo mothers are out there where the dad abandons their child and they end up living on welfare. A mother will do anything to protect their child, but some fathers aren't willing to provide or step up and be a dad and thats sad, even potential grandparents say they not willing to help out. What does that say about people. And if the health and mental health of the mother is compromised, they end up with depression and unable to look after their child anyway.
Then on the other hand you have couples that would pay thousands of dollars to have IVF. They not willing to adopt or raise someone elses child or orphans. They want to have their own or will use a surrogate to have them. I don't quite understand that but if they have that amount of money perhaps they could spare some for children already alive and in poverty so they can have a better life. Why didn't they have children when they were younger? It might not even be that. Modeen life means fertilty isn't what it used to be...our resources to look after them are not infinite. Why do people even use birth control?
So many children grow up abandoned and neglected and abused and that's shameful, especially when the abuse and neglect is done by their own parents. To have loving parents/guardians and quality of life is now a human right - because thats the humane thing to do.
If we can do the same for the rest of Gods creation and be good stewards (by law) then... isn't that a good thing? It's meant to safeguard whatever or whoever needs protecting from abuse.
Anyway the origins of legal person hood are not unique to New Zealand. It originated in the USA...so, possibly some states already have it as there are different laws in different states. If someone actually wants an abortion and they can't have it in one state they'd probably just go to another rather than give birth and have their child taken away from them. Sometimes its not actually even about a mothers right to have a child, its the child's right to have a good parent. That might be difficult to legislate.
Trying to get her to understand the point feels like playing chess with a pigeon.
I just...I can't anymore. Waste of time and energy.
Getting back to the OP:
I am at New Zealand - not that such has any relevance to the OP.
Every post in this thread has MISSED THE SIGNIFICANCE of "personhood."
A "person" is not a living man or woman; it is a dead thing, at Law. When NZ's purported government, a likewise dead thing i.e. a corporation, assigned such likewise dead status to a piece of geography, it gained jurisdiction over it. IOW, the "personhood" gambit was yet another land grab by the corporation.
If anyone wants to see the documentation, just ask.
What I am prepared to lay out here, if understood, will rock your fraudulent world because it is insinuated into every aspect of it (and not merely into a mountain in NZ).
I am at New Zealand - not that such has any relevance to the OP.
Every post in this thread has MISSED THE SIGNIFICANCE of "personhood."
A "person" is not a living man or woman; it is a dead thing, at Law. When NZ's purported government, a likewise dead thing i.e. a corporation, assigned such likewise dead status to a piece of geography, it gained jurisdiction over it. IOW, the "personhood" gambit was yet another land grab by the corporation.
If anyone wants to see the documentation, just ask.
I'm not a lawyer, not sure if we have one here so I'm going to just add this in to the mix and see where it gets us.
The 5 requirements of personhood refer to the Cognitive Criteria of Personhood established by philosopher Mary Anne Warren in 1973. These traits—consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, communication, and self-awareness—are central to philosophical and bioethical debates surrounding human and moral status.
Compare that definition to the mountain. Unless person-hood is vastly different in NZ.
Trying to get her to understand the point feels like playing chess with a pigeon.
I just...I can't anymore. Waste of time and energy.
I know that reference and I think I know what you mean. lol
But He didn't give them people rights. Mountains, people, one of these things is not like the other.
And they aren't people. Mountain not a person, don't treat like a person.
But they are humans in the womb and that's where their rights should begin. They should not be murdered in the womb.
Growing up poor is not the issue. If a person can't afford to have children, then they should wait until they can. It's unfair to abort a child because of selfishness.
We're not talking about any of that, we are talking about abortion which is murder.
You need to go see an abortion performed, there is no more cruel a way to die. Every abortion kills an innocent baby.
There are multiple ways that land masses are controlled by gts, corporations and corporate governments; the later being the norm. Most are designated "for the greater good" as the reason, but there are more often wealth acquisitions. They do that here in the USA all the time.
I understand what you mean by "personhood" in law. Your legal definition in NZ is likely the same as here. The same thought I cured to me when I first read this thread and decided that it was a list cause to try to educate someone on the issue. However we know, as believers in Christ, the value of human life exceeds that of land or animals.
Trying to get her to understand the point feels like playing chess with a pigeon.
I just...I can't anymore. Waste of time and energy.
Like nailing jello to a wall. I couldn't either.
Sounds right, but "people" (i.e. the living) is not the same as person (i.e. the dead).
and
"Mountain" IS a person (i.e. a dead thing), as the corporation (also dead) appropriates it, as per the OP, legislates into "personhood." The OP has nothing in common with anything alive or living.
It is exactly the same, WORLDWIDE.
So, folks, here is the gist of the worldwide scam: person is a dead entity; person is NOT man/woman or people. Note that every assertion is documented, linked and easily checkable.
The New Zealand Legislation Act 2019, Section 13, defines person as follows:
person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body
Webster's Dictionary defines person as follows:
PERSON, a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage
(Perhaps now you might understand why every NZ "law" is not actually law but a mere "Act" - and acts require actors wearing masks I.e. personas...)
Black's Law Dictionary, page LXVII, defines person as follows:
"Person" includes a corporation, an association, a trust, a partnership, and any other organization or legal entity.
John Bouvier's Dictionary
- Natural persons: Defined as human beings formed by nature.
- Artificial persons: Defined as entities created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, also known as "corporations" or "bodies politic
That mountain is defined by the second at it's incorporation.
The same is done here with locations considered creations of the state are incorporated.
.
Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines "human being" as follows:
Human being. A person, male or female.
So we're back to the dead persona, i.e. the person.
The Great Reset is upon us. So what is The Great Reset??? Let's take a look at one of "their" revered code books for the answer.
Black's Law Dictionary is the most frequently used legal dictionary in the United States, perhaps the world. One can download the pdf here.
On page 1473, you will find the definition:
RESET. The receiving and keeping stolen
goods, knowing them to be stolen, with a
design of feloniously retaining them from
the real owner.
.
Indeed.
Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines "human being" as follows:
Human being. A person, male or female.
So we're back to the dead persona, i.e. the person.
And so the land grab aka the Great Reset continues.
The Great Reset is upon us. So what is The Great Reset??? Let's take a look at one of "their" revered code books for the answer.
Black's Law Dictionary is the most frequently used legal dictionary in the United States, perhaps the world. One can download the pdf here.
On page 1473, you will find the definition:
RESET. The receiving and keeping stolen
goods, knowing them to be stolen, with a
design of feloniously retaining them from
the real owner.
.
Thank you very much for the e dictionary!
I have some hard covers of Blacks LD.
.
Like the majority, Warren does not comprehend the meaning of person (or personhood) and admits as much. Here's a paragraph from her screed:
"What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person? This is obviously not the place to attempt a complete analysis of the concept of personhood, but we do not need such a fully adequate analysis just to determine whether and why a fetus is or isn’t a person. All we need is a rough and approximate list of the most basic criteria of personhood, and some idea of which, or how many, of these an entity must satisfy in order to properly be considered a person."
Of course, her philosophical writing has no basis in Law or in corporate jurisprudence..
.
The writing you are referring to is: On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion (9 pages).
Like the majority, Warren does not comprehend the meaning of person (or personhood) and admits as much. Here's a paragraph from her screed:
"What characteristics entitle an entity to be considered a person? This is obviously not the place to attempt a complete analysis of the concept of personhood, but we do not need such a fully adequate analysis just to determine whether and why a fetus is or isn’t a person. All we need is a rough and approximate list of the most basic criteria of personhood, and some idea of which, or how many, of these an entity must satisfy in order to properly be considered a person."
Of course, her philosophical writing has no basis in Law or in corporate jurisprudence..
The sinister part is that you, as a person, are dead at Law and legally considered a right-and-duty-bearing unit of the corporation - mere property of the corporation/state.
.
Yes, but not for the reasons you're thinking.
Back to NZ legislation, the definition of birth is - wait for it - a stillbirth, declared DEAD AT BIRTH:
-source: New Zealand Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021
That began when parents complied with the status quo to go to the hospitals for births, now Cesarians, and sign the form for the SS# and BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
Everyone except for the family gets a financial incentive and unsuspecting parents, (except claim of # dependents), unwittingly gave the corporate State jurisdiction over the fruit of marriage.
Satan has usurped authority in every institution one way or another.