The writings of Confucious is not religious.
Well, opinions vary (and by the way, you used the wrong verb). Confucianism is commonly considered a religion, but in any case, it was YOUR OWN example:
Confucious was one man and he left something superbly better.
If you're going to say that some other writings are "superbly better" than the writings in the Bible, which are clearly religious in nature, then I assume you would be comparing other religious writings to them. Comparing a science book to the Bible, for instance, would be apples and oranges. But if you are asking to withdraw your example of Confucianism on the basis that it is not religious, I will allow it.
You, a Christian saying that a Muslim who wilfully ignores jesus and his sacrifice will find God?
God says that if you seek Him, you will find Him. I have no reason not to take Him at His word. Whether people understand that the sacrifice of Jesus allows them to enter into the presence of God or not, the sacrifice still operates implicitly for all who were created for salvation, regardless of religion.
"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring
and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice
and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd." --Jesus (John 10:16, Amplified Bible)
I read what you have to say about slavery. You sound like a worldly lawyer that will justify anything, even justify all the unjust rules in the Bible to be right with God.
Your problem here is twofold. First, you (a mere mortal) have already decided that the rules that the creator of the universe has provided in the Bible are unjust, so you are not interested in hearing their justification. Anyone who tries to explain it to you must be fundamentally flawed, therefore, you don't have to listen.
Secondly, you're laboring under the same misconception as this
@Drizzt Do'Urden, that the slavery regulated in the Bible is the same as the slavery we think of after watching "Roots." This leads you to the untenable position that Jesus, who is almost universally recognized as one of the most peaceful, loving persons in the history of forever, was secretly a rabid maniac who believed that slaves should be beaten every day and twice on Sunday for good measure. It would be like suggesting that Ghandi was secretly a member of the Hell's Angels.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but if you've already decided that there can be no justification for the horrors Christianity brings, then I'm not going to waste a good education on a disinterested student. At least I can tell that you are arguing your own opinions in your own words here, and not just Googling something that you think supports your position, like the aforementioned member seems inclined to do, so props for that.
If there were a god he will not take one as yourself to spend eternity with him.
Oh, I'm crushed. Thankfully, you're not on the admissions board.
Don't worry, there is no hell.
I know; at least not in the way most people think about it.
Lose yourself in your fairy stories.
It's better than being lost without them.
The Bible only sells better than the Quran because there are many more Christians and Christian institutions.
So clearly the writings of the Bible have a wider appeal than those of the Quran, if it has produced so many more Christians than the Quran has produced Muslims. If there were more Muslims than Christians, then one would have to consider that the Quran was more effectively written. Neither is WRONG, per se, but obviously the more popular book has the broader appeal.