One of the most influential in this regard for me are the works of Semyon Frank, a religious philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Frank).

He notes what many popular preachers do not notice, that if we say that fate of man comes from the fact that we are free and so in this freedom we sin, then it follows from this that God values us as free creatures. And thus that we cannot say that an illness is a “punishment” for sins, as a punishment would be basically using force where none is possible. God does not use force. Otherwise – why not stop Adam from committing a sin by force in the first place?

Not only that, but Frank and many other philosophers, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Vladimir Solovyov, did not view God as a totally separate entity from man, but as part of man which is neither separable, nor totally united. And so saying that “God owns are bodies” is basically same as saying “we own our bodies”.

And finally, miracles do not have to mean the “suspending of laws of physics”. Miracles may mean “ordinary physics” + “external power of God”, whatever that power is. Many philosophers, including Frank, take that stance and show that miracles do not contradict physics a bit, since physics studies a closed system of known forces. Biology, for instance, says nothing about what would happen to a virgin’s body if an external force (certain power of God) acts upon her.

So I think that difficulties come from a simplistic understanding of Christianity and of ignoring the full consequences of things Christianity teaches, like free will.

When it comes down to just gut feelings I think God very much agrees with personal property because it allows us to exercise free will and surrender our posessions and desires to God’s glory. God wants us to live like like communitarians but it only serves his design if we have the ability to live like capitalists. The parable of the talents seems to demonstrate this but again if we cannot establish self ownership biblically then we have no basis. Natural law is, in my opinion, insufficient to use as the basis. Similarly if we accept that God/Jesus performed miracles, being generally, temporarily suspending the laws of physical science, than we see that even something as settled as gravity becomes subordinate to God’s will. How can natural law then bind/legitamize our actions when water can be turned to wine and women to salt? We trust physics and the comfort that we will not float out of our beds in the morning and likewise we can trust that natural law holds but without a biblical linchpin of self-ownership we simply act on faith.

Simply ascribing ownership to B doesn’t establish the state of affairs where B owns this and therefore doesn’t establish the truth of the sentence “B owns this” just as simply saying “The cat is sitting on the mat” doesn’t establish the state of affairs where the cat is sitting on the mat and therefore doesn’t establish the truth of the sentence “The cat is sitting on the mat”. The process is one of magical incantation.

As far as self-ownership is concerned, I take it that the operative sentence is “I own myself”. However, I am myself and you are yourself. Ownership is irrelevant.