data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b440b/b440b608bfc19c6e98900ea8771275bef7fe70a5" alt="I used to be a human being"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d1ffe/d1ffe36c474707c8a4ecccfc24c8bce67e07d594" alt="i used to be a human being i used to be a human being"
This may be the instance that Etymology Online relied on for its dating of "human being" to "by 1690s," as noted in slim's answer. three Modes, which he saith have no Existence of their own, such as Absence, Presence, Dependence, Change, (which by the Animadverter's leave are nor Modes, but Relations) or which will (as he saith) make one have a clearer Idea of them they are the same in Divine, as Posture in human Beings. The common Opinion of the Trinitarians, even from the beginning (if we may believe the Animadverter) has been, that the three Persons are not three Substances, Attributes, Properties, or any real, but only incompleat Beings, viz. From Mathew Tindal, " A Letter to the Reverend the Clergy of Both Universities, Concerning the Trinity and the Athanasian Creed" (1694): Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary (2003) gives a first occurrence date of 1751 for "human being," although a Google Books search discloses an instance from 57 years earlier. With regard to the exact phrase "human being" (or "human beings"), dictionaries indicate that the term emerged into common usage at a surprisingly late date. So all you can really call him/her/it is a "being". You don't want to say "God" if that's the end point of your argument or you'll be talking in circles. You wouldn't call this being a "creature" because that word means "something that is created", and the ultimate creator must not have been created by something else. Likewise if you are discussing theology or philosphy and you want to discuss who or what created the universe, you wouldn't refer to this being as a "human" because a human surely is not capable of creating the universe. "People" would be debatable - does "people" mean "humans" or could it refer to some category of non-humans? But if you say "alien beings" then the term is strictly accurate. Like if you want to talk about life on other planets, you wouldn't call them "humans" because presumably they are a different species. It makes sense to use it when we want to describe a very general case or want to be very careful not to imply something that we don't want to imply. It seems to me that it's a very useful word. We regularly talk about "different types of beings in the universe" and so on. A "being" would be "something that is", that is, "something that exists".
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d5f5/6d5f50b4f74b65fee1c5ff1f616887d2ef43a910" alt="i used to be a human being i used to be a human being"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/28134/281346a86983c8036a577f1bd7f4d1173cec0100" alt="i used to be a human being i used to be a human being"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f0a9/2f0a9d0c195cbffad9dcdecc724853f281e1140b" alt="i used to be a human being i used to be a human being"
This one doesn't seem particularly mysterious. If you say, "Fighting will not be tolerated" you mean "people engaging in fights", etc. " you mean, "the thoughts that I am thinking". If you say, "My thinking on the subject is. By definition, a "gerund" is a verb that is being used as a noun.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b440b/b440b608bfc19c6e98900ea8771275bef7fe70a5" alt="I used to be a human being"