(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

What if the house she broke into and set up residence was owned by a 1%-er?

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

(09-12-2017 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

If we get away from the rule of law we are no longer a country.

(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?

Where did I ever do that?

(09-12-2017 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

If we get away from the rule of law we are no longer a country.

So you do want the ex-sheriff of Arizona in jail?

(09-12-2017 01:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

If we get away from the rule of law we are no longer a country.

So you do want the ex-sheriff of Arizona in jail?

Yes...if the pardon is illegal.....

(09-12-2017 01:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

If we get away from the rule of law we are no longer a country.

So you do want the ex-sheriff of Arizona in jail?

Pardons are part of the legal process and legal.

(09-12-2017 01:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:41 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Not really. Private property rights only exist due to law and public policy. Its the same thing that governs citizenship.

Here's some of the hoops a non-citizen has to go through to buy property in Mexico. I simply show you this because you seem to think just walking into a nation and taking up residence there is normal procedure in the world. It is not. The country that whines the loudest about this (Mexico) is quite restrictive in its immigration policies and its treatment of non-citizens. They do not allow people illegally in their country to stay PERIOD.

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/01/a...in-mexico/

That's the point they want to refuse to concede. We are a nation of laws.

In that sense, one example of a violation of law, though seemingly unrelated to another example, are connected in that laws have been violated.

If one group of people are excused for their violation of a certain law why should other groups guilty of violating other laws not be upset?

Rule - of - law.

Very simple concept.

If we get away from the rule of law we are no longer a country.

So you do want the ex-sheriff of Arizona in jail?

His pardon was allowed for under the "rule of law".

If the POTUS was NOT allowed pardon power then we'd have a problem.

(09-11-2017 06:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm Catholic and the Pope can go F himself.

Well, that's kinda next level...

(09-12-2017 01:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

What if the house she broke into and set up residence was owned by a 1%-er?

Or, even better- What if the "house" they took up residency in was a simple cabin, in the backwoods, unoccupied and owned by the Federal Government?




Then the leftists claim it's "domestic terrorism".

If it weren't for double standards the left would have no standards at all.

(09-12-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?

Where did I ever do that?

I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..

(09-12-2017 03:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?

Where did I ever do that?

I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..

And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.

(09-12-2017 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 03:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?

Where did I ever do that?

I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..

And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.

Aw that is cute calling his analogy moronic, although the intent is that the Bull is moronic. When you can't win the argument ________________

(09-12-2017 04:01 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 03:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 03:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:41 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  But comparing illegally entering the country to embezzlement is not a false equivalency? Really tom?

Where did I ever do that?

I find it interesting you had no comment on the original post I was replying to but nearly broke your ankles tripping over yourself to "correct" mine..

And I didn't break anything...the analogy is moronic.

Aw that is cute calling his analogy moronic, although the intent is that the Bull is moronic. When you can't win the argument ________________

Not to mention my analogy is as close as you can get... Someone goes someplace to live illegally, the kids should be left there (living illegally) while the parents go to trial.

Let me ask you this tom... What do you do with the parent? Do you put them in jail or deport htem for breaking the law? Because if you do that you're hurting the kids.

"Won't someone think of the children" used to be something people on the left would say to make fun of the right. Now they say it to justify their politics.

(09-12-2017 11:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:28 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 10:15 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  A lady in the Memphis metro area was recently arrested for years of embezzling from her employer. She was arrested and is awaiting trial.

Should her children be able to continue to live in their home? They were not involved in her criminal activity. They may not have even been aware of her actions.

A woman broke into someone elses house and decided to live there with her kids. The kids did nothing wrong. should they be allowed to continue living in the house while the mother is on trial?

False equivalency. Your hypothetical deals with someone's personal property rights.

Our country, by right of citizenship is OUR property.

Just like I'd expect China, or any other country and their citizens to react if I randomly decided to go squat in their country. That's their property. Not one part of it would belong to me unless I legally immigrated, requested and assumed citizenship, and paid taxes, etc.

Are liberals really that jacked up inside the skull canister to not understand a sovereign nation's right to create and regulate laws?

Governing based on feelings instead of reasoning is tyranny. I know that's what you're working towards, but there are a lot of us that are going to stand in your way.

(09-12-2017 09:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 04:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This pope doesn't even believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE, and the only way to the Father.

He has told billions of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc that they do not even need Christ to be forgiven by God.

That is 1000000000000000000000000000000000 times more important than DACA

Francis has a lot of issues with his views on temporal matters. However, when it comes to the faith itself, he is accurate. You have a major misunderstanding of what Francis was talking about when he said it would still be possible for someone to make it to heaven even if they did not understand how Christ fit into the picture.

Actually, it's this stance that Francis takes that makes the "problem of evil" solvable for Christianity. Otherwise, God would immoral and very arbitrary with his views.

When it comes to the bible he is NOT accurate, he doesn't even view the bible as the inspired Word of God.

There is no "misunderstanding" at all concerning his own words about atheists and Muslims having a path to God outside of Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


You yourself openly deny Jesus is the Son of God and the Way the Truth and the Life, You yourself DENY that the bible is the Word of God.

(09-12-2017 06:18 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 09:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 04:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This pope doesn't even believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE, and the only way to the Father.

He has told billions of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc that they do not even need Christ to be forgiven by God.

That is 1000000000000000000000000000000000 times more important than DACA

Francis has a lot of issues with his views on temporal matters. However, when it comes to the faith itself, he is accurate. You have a major misunderstanding of what Francis was talking about when he said it would still be possible for someone to make it to heaven even if they did not understand how Christ fit into the picture.

Actually, it's this stance that Francis takes that makes the "problem of evil" solvable for Christianity. Otherwise, God would immoral and very arbitrary with his views.

When it comes to the bible he is NOT accurate, he doesn't even view the bible as the inspired Word of God.

There is no "misunderstanding" at all concerning his own words about atheists and Muslims having a path to God outside of Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


You yourself openly deny Jesus is the Son of God and the Way the Truth and the Life, You yourself DENY that the bible is the Word of God.

You completely ignore and/or miss my point. There are situations in the world where kids grow up in completely sheltered areas where Christianity is never observed directly. Maybe the kids grow up in India or other Asian countries where the dominant religions are Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Or maybe even more blatant the children who grow up in the middle east who are brainwashed in Islam their entire lives, and access to a Christian mission is impossible because they cannot travel outside their village (poverty) and the missions are not allowed in the Muslim country.

Those are examples where a lack of access would automatically damn these people to hell - through no fault of their own - according to your beliefs.

(09-13-2017 08:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 06:18 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 09:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 04:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This pope doesn't even believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE, and the only way to the Father.

He has told billions of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc that they do not even need Christ to be forgiven by God.

That is 1000000000000000000000000000000000 times more important than DACA

Francis has a lot of issues with his views on temporal matters. However, when it comes to the faith itself, he is accurate. You have a major misunderstanding of what Francis was talking about when he said it would still be possible for someone to make it to heaven even if they did not understand how Christ fit into the picture.

Actually, it's this stance that Francis takes that makes the "problem of evil" solvable for Christianity. Otherwise, God would immoral and very arbitrary with his views.

When it comes to the bible he is NOT accurate, he doesn't even view the bible as the inspired Word of God.

There is no "misunderstanding" at all concerning his own words about atheists and Muslims having a path to God outside of Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


You yourself openly deny Jesus is the Son of God and the Way the Truth and the Life, You yourself DENY that the bible is the Word of God.

You completely ignore and/or miss my point. There are situations in the world where kids grow up in completely sheltered areas where Christianity is never observed directly. Maybe the kids grow up in India or other Asian countries where the dominant religions are Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Or maybe even more blatant the children who grow up in the middle east who are brainwashed in Islam their entire lives, and access to a Christian mission is impossible because they cannot travel outside their village (poverty) and the missions are not allowed in the Muslim country.

Those are examples where a lack of access would automatically damn these people to hell - through no fault of their own - according to your beliefs.

This is a pretty good explanation by William Lane Craig:

Some background on Dr. William Lane Craig, professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles.

Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Is Ready to Debate, but Finds Few Challengers

Quote:[Sam] Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

(09-13-2017 08:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 06:18 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 09:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 04:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This pope doesn't even believe Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE, and the only way to the Father.

He has told billions of Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc that they do not even need Christ to be forgiven by God.

That is 1000000000000000000000000000000000 times more important than DACA

Francis has a lot of issues with his views on temporal matters. However, when it comes to the faith itself, he is accurate. You have a major misunderstanding of what Francis was talking about when he said it would still be possible for someone to make it to heaven even if they did not understand how Christ fit into the picture.

Actually, it's this stance that Francis takes that makes the "problem of evil" solvable for Christianity. Otherwise, God would immoral and very arbitrary with his views.

When it comes to the bible he is NOT accurate, he doesn't even view the bible as the inspired Word of God.

There is no "misunderstanding" at all concerning his own words about atheists and Muslims having a path to God outside of Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


You yourself openly deny Jesus is the Son of God and the Way the Truth and the Life, You yourself DENY that the bible is the Word of God.

You completely ignore and/or miss my point. There are situations in the world where kids grow up in completely sheltered areas where Christianity is never observed directly. Maybe the kids grow up in India or other Asian countries where the dominant religions are Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Or maybe even more blatant the children who grow up in the middle east who are brainwashed in Islam their entire lives, and access to a Christian mission is impossible because they cannot travel outside their village (poverty) and the missions are not allowed in the Muslim country.

Those are examples where a lack of access would automatically damn these people to hell - through no fault of their own - according to your beliefs.

Quote:God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity - Romans 1
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Quote:Acts 14
16 In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17 Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” 18 Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

http://www.swordandspirit.com/library/wr...gmies.html

Quote:Is there evidence of any people who have been "enlightened," who have received a message similar to the revelations to the Jews and Christians, but have never heard of the name of Jesus? The Bible says that He has not left Himself without testimony (Acts 14:16-17) so there had better be some evidence somewhere, and there is - in abundance. Here's one example of many:

Pachacuti ruled the Incas from AD 1438 to 1471. He built many magnificent cities, palaces, forts, and temples. One famous fortress of his was Machu Picchu which still stands. Most Incas were satisfied worshiping the sun god, Inti. Not Pachacuti. At first he was a serious follower of Inti, but later he began to question Inti's godhood. How could a god be blocked out with a raised human hand? Why did Inti follow the same old beaten path day after day, year after year? Why didn't he ever do anything original as a god should? It was then that Pachacuti searched for and discovered an almost entirely forgotten Inca deity - Viracocha, the Lord of all things, the Creator. Pachacuti revived the memory of Viracocha to the Incas. Read just some of the attributes that Pachacuti gives to Viracocha:

He is ancient, remote, supreme, and uncreated.
He created all peoples by his word as well as all huacas [spirits].
He ordains man's years and nourishes him.
He is the very principle of life.
He is a bringer of peace and an orderer.
He is blessed in his own being and has pity on men's wretchedness.
He alone judges and absolves men and enables them to combat their evil tendencies.

A perfect description of the God of the Bible? No, but pretty close; and all this comes from a man who had no contact with Jews or Christians, yet he still sought after God and found Him ("Seek and you will..."). This is indeed evidence that Jesus is the True Light that enlightens all men.

There are hundreds of stories of peoples like this whose descriptions of their god, although vague, are extraordinarily like the God of the Bible. And there's more: There are tribes which tell of a Lost Book which they believe will lead their people to a greater understanding of God. They wait now for someone to bring them that Book. Some peoples have rituals which are so like Judaeo-Christian ritual, they defy belief: rituals such as sacrifice for the sins of the people, customs that require an acting out of being born again in order to bring peace, etc. To be sure, some of these peoples have contaminated their stories over time or spoiled the purity of their rituals. Some have ignored the Light altogether and are willingly worshiping demons in place of the one, true God. (Satan doesn't let up on you; he is not ignoring these people, either.)

I can't judge the heart of these people who haven't heard the gospel. All I'm going to say is that I believe it's possible. It's also our duty as Christians to spread the good news.