The Bible is Liberal not Conservative

A good critique of my laziness to not present any quotes haha. Firstly I will address the rudeness. I don't believe that all conservative people should necessarily be treated rudely, but that certain conservative people--who abuse positions of power and are constantly judgemental of others--should certainly be treated with contempt. I accept the definitions of my opponent. However, he should note that we are not talking about Catholicism. We are talking about independent interpretations of the Bible. This means that we are not necessarily discussing the interpretations of any particular denomination, including the "independent evangelical" nondenomination. My opponent's counterargument with regard to sex is correct to an extent. Sex is confined to marriage, which is, naturally, a traditional association. However, the restrictions placed upon sex by different religious groups is irrelevant to our exegetical look into the Bible. These are social restrictions based on human feelings and misconceptions. They are not outworkings of the actual scripture, but natural human guilt with regard to sex. Because guilt and rejection are commonly associated with sex in the human psyche (it is awkward to cite psychology textbooks and journal articles in an online forum), the Bible has been interpreted according to these feelings. We need to overcome our natural tendencies to interpret these Scriptures. A quotation within my opponent's rebuttal in fact partially confirms my assertion that the traditional rules within the Old Testament are intended to demonstrate the holiness of God, not to impose real moral law. He said, "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death" (Deuteronomy 17:12). Notice that the subject of the passage is not the judge or the priest, but the fact that such a figure is ministering to the LORD. The significance of showing contempt for them is revealed in the New Testament, when Jesus becomes the "high priest" of the Christians, and all believers are said to be priests--not a mere rhetorical fantasy! To show contempt for Jesus, or to a person representing him, is said to be a rejection of God--much as my opponent may believe that contempt for the Prophet is a rejection of God, although I am making an assumption here which he may wish to clarify. A good model for looking at the Old Testament and the New Testament is like a story. It goes through Genesis, the Flood, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, the Exodus, the wilderness, the Promised Land, the judges, the prophets, and then finally it comes to Jesus where it says the gig is up, this is it, and all the earlier parts of the story were simply pointing to this one man who would arrive in the future. If you read the scripture with an awareness of Jesus, he will appear everywhere--not as some cherry-picking confirmation bias--but as what seems to be a reasonable confirmation of the theory of the New Testament. My main argument focuses on the moral liberalism of Jesus, in that his stated value "do to others what you would want them to do to you" (Matt. 7:12) is the value which believers are really expected to follow. It is an overarching canvass of the entire moral scope of the Bible, except for the law of the flesh (Rom. 7:15) that held us captive during the times of the Old Testament. These laws refer to such things as ceremonal washings (Mark 7), rituals, festivals, and other things which, sadly, Christians still often follow today. It seems fulfilled that Jesus said that the gate to life is narrow, and there are few that enter through it. Another liberal aspect of the Bible is the means of salvation. While all religions (including Christianity) on the planet emphasise good deeds as a means of salvation, the Bible emphasises that salvation is a free gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8 NIV). "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" (John 3:36). Many conservatives, including of course many Christians, cannot stand this concept for various reasons. One reason is of course the fact that it is a socially unacceptable belief due to it being so strange and fresh. I am not, of course, cherry-picking verses to suit this theory. There are many verses pertaining to good deeds in the Bible, some of which require careful contextual analysis, and others which are simple. These verses emphasis that loving other people is the result of receiving the free gift, as not only does believing in Jesus bring salvation, but also the Holy Spirit who makes us want to do good. Again, salvation is not caused by good deeds. A greater propensity towards good deeds is caused by salvation. This, I'm sure my opponent would agree, is liberating. Should my opponent wish to confront my core belief of free-gift salvation, he would have to demonstrate that overall the Bible makes a causal link between good deeds and salvation, not just a correlation. This causation would have to go beyond good deeds maintaining one's faith, or achieving some goal, but would have to clearly dictate that the way by which one is saved depends on their moral ability. He cannot draw upon the Psalms of David, whereby David attributes his own salvation to his moral ability. This is because David is a real life symbol of Jesus, as is most of the Old Testament. Jesus is according to the Bible the only man who has genuinely and absolutely achieved his own salvation. Even then, it was through the mercy and guidance of God. My opponent would have to defend one of the main contentions of Islam, much of modern Judaism, and also popular culture--that God gave us the innate ability to be saved if we try hard enough. Hard enough remains, as ever, arbitrary.