Mike

(I think I'm looking at this a little differently from the way some others do. If my way of looking at it is sort of beside the real point then I apologize in advance.) But tell me what you think about whether it matters if we call these "promptings"; or if we were to find another way to describe them. I ask because reading that you aren't sure you'll trust a prompting again makes me wonder (given the context you provided) whether just making the very statement is an act of trusting some prompting. Do you see what I mean? I'm interested in talking about it if you are, too.

No, I don't think that my argument indicates what you say it indicates. I think I just see some things differently than you do--and I've only been talking about one specific thing, not all those other concepts you seem to insist as being inextricably tied to the concept described in terms of a natural right. Throughout I've been talking only about property ownership as a natural right. The very first statement in this thread illustrates: "In the discussion of government and laws, it appears that our friends across borders and seas do not look at rights the same way as the American Founding Fathers would." That's true. Not everybody in the world looks at rights the same way--for that matter, I doubt even all the Founders looked at rights in precisely the same way. This doesn't mean I doubt the divine origin of everything else you care to name--although i might doubt some of them. I'm pretty sure both of us and others "all over the Church" can be faithful and manage our life aspects while disagreeing with one particular political notion--which is what I think property ownership is in the context of the OP.

Some people take care of the things they own. Others don't. Some people take care of the things they are allowed to borrow--others don't. Some people take care of the things they perceive to be sharing with millions of people--many others abuse those same things. It seems reasonable to conclude that "ownership" is not the common perception that determines the degree to which people take care of things. So, I don't see how to conclude that God gave us the notion of ownership.

I’m wondering what would be the use of a newborn remembering the pre-mortal existence—that is if a newborn brain were capable of a memory?

Yes, men (should be) held accountable just as much as women. Why is the female body sexualized? I think It's obvious, but I wonder if you're asking something different than the obvious.

Before I even think about responding to your first question I find myself wondering how well you and your wife know each other. In response to your second question (as it was asked) sometimes I stay in my shirt and tie for a while, other times I walk around stark naked for awhile. It's situational, hahaha. Want to get to know me better? Hahahaha

The objectives are similar, i.e. to make the world safer. But the situations are not sufficiently similar for comparison to support an identical argument. For example it is possible (though unlikely) to eliminate North Korean or Iranian access to nuclear weapons. It is impossible (speaking practically) to eliminate all Americans' access to firearms. It is desirable to eliminate North Korean and Iranian access to nuclear weapons. It isn't desirable to eliminate all Americans' access to firearms.

I hadn't heard that there is a causal relationship between smart and blood to those parts. Hmmm ... blood flow. Now that I think on it my wife did remark that I became smarter after my prostatectomy. Not sure the trade-off was a positive thing though.

Hence my remark that "I think I do" perceive what you mean.

Maybe not. So I'll bow out hoping not to annoy. Thanks for chatting with me.

Right. But "possessions" was @Grunt's choice of word, so that's why I used it. P.S. the *only* thing I would split hairs about is "ownership (aka stewardship)". But it's not a problem as long as I perceive what you mean. And I think I do. So I won't (split hairs).

Well, I don't get to say that our respective wordings or perceptions are right or wrong, just different. I'm "trading my life" when I create. I "devote time off to receive something". And the act of creating is an experience that benefits my eternal progression, right? OK, I'm good with what you say. If I use different words maybe we both mean essentially the same thing. The only caveat for me is that possessions to me means what I can take with me when I die vs. what I can't, i.e. real estate.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to overlook it. Well, I believe my life is my own to do with as I please--and of course it goes without saying to bring up the consequences. And yes I believe the same about others. I'm thinking the word "agency" kind of wraps that all up. And that's where I grow a little puzzled about why it's even useful to use terms like rights (and especially natural ones) in the first place. If God put us here to use agency and doesn't want us getting in each others way so to speak as far as that goes, then it seems more reasonable to think about it in those terms. Hmmm. Wait a second. Creation in the first sentence above seems to have a different meaning from creation in the second sentence. Care to elaborate for me so that I don't go off on a tangent that isn't what you meant?

If I am conflating, then I'll try harder to see it, and I'll drop it. I have, actually, considered the set of tools idea. And you'll recall I mentioned stewardship at the outset. So, I agree with you there. I appreciate your indulgence so far. Hope you won't feel like I detracted from the intent of your OP.

I agree with you that it doesn't particularly matter. My remarks have been only for my personal benefit trying to wrap my mind around the concept of natural rights, as I mentioned. It was only that natural rights in the context of private property or vice versa struck me as interesting when I saw the OP. And also as I said I appreciate and honor the man-made legal laws related to it. I benefit temporally from them.

"For ownership sake" merely seemed like a reasonable phrase to use in terms of a natural right. I was thinking of other natural rights and that they might exist for their own sake. It's interesting to me that your raised the United Order for consideration. I was thinking that it's purpose was to teach us to sort of divorce ourselves of the notion of ownership for the sake of giving it all up for Good (and to God) through the administration of the Church. In my mind that was a good reason for me to discount the idea of private property being a divinely appointed or "natural" right. In that context I have an even stronger disagreement with the word "natural" in the first place.

Well, right vs. wrong and whether or not the very notion of rights from an atheist viewpoint is pointless are probably topics for a different thread so I'll abandon them so as not to muddy the waters. I think a discussion of human instinct is interesting, but since you place more stock in Locke's theory I think it only courteous that I focus upon natural rights from a standpoint of faith as Locke apparently did. So, like you I believe in God. Let's stipulate that we both have faith. I'm still prone to ask myself whether the notion of prizing private property came from God or from humans. I can't readily think of any divine injunction to motivate me toward owning a piece of that which God created--that is, owning it for ownership sake.

I've yet to wrap my mind around the concept. Maybe where I'm getting hung-up in my mind is that if I put myself in the shoes of an atheist then as a human being I'm part of the whole of nature. Therefore, everything I do--everything any human does--is natural. Moreover, a so-called legal right having come from humans is really merely natural, too. Therefore, why draw a distinction? Conversely, if I put myself in the shoes of a theist (Christian or otherwise) I observe this right of private property being delineated by certain humans and applying only to certain humans (conveniently) apart from all else in creation. Therefore, why call it natural particularly when the concept is clearly not universal?

When I was 19 I took my old paper-back copies of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and had them bound. The pages are now brown. When I re-read (them as opposed to holding a newer edition) I feel as if I'm holding a treasure.

I agree completely. And I happen to relish the scent (and the feel) of book-paper pages, especially the older ones.

With regard to private property I respect others’ perception of a right to own; and I enjoy legal protection of the property my fellow citizens perceive me to “own”. But I don't see private property as a so-called natural right--it seems more legal in every sense. Personally in terms of my belief in God the concept of stewardship appeals more to me than the concept of ownership.

Which I confess used to drive me crazy. 😂

Desperate times call for desperate measures, hahaha

Hahaha, she loves piña coladas, but won't walk with me in the rain. What can I say? One learns to sacrifice (which someone told me means giving up something I want for something I want more. ...we both like the feel of the ocean.) 😊

Sometimes my wife pretends she wants to "swap" me (out), but we both know that we've arrived at the point where we're better off with each other. (I can't get Orleans' song "Still the One" out of my head at the moment). 🤣