The Bible: Because all the works of science can't compare to the writings of a few cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought that every species of animal on Earth lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

Sorry to be a bit harsh but as someone who is liberal in the sense Ben mentioned, I do find the suggestion that other faiths are inferior merely because one verse from John's gospel allegely implies this (and this verse could be interpreted in other ways) a little offensive and, more importantly, unjustified.

I do not doubt that the Bible is of value, I believe that some parts of it are literally true and other parts convey important lessons. But I do not think it is very reasonable to take everything in the Bible as (for want of a better word) gospel. The Bible is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with some of the findings of modern science (as well as the Noah story, one could consider, for example, disparities between Biblical and scientific estimations of the age of the world, or the great degree of genetic diverity that exists; which would be inexplicable if we were all descended from just two people). Further, some of the acts attributed to God in the Bible are morally outrageous and inconsistent with the picture of God being benevolent.

I believe that the best way to find out about God is to observe humanity and the world and reason freely about what each observation might say about the existence and/or qualities of God. I suppose that this is another way that I could be said to be a liberal; I believe that an unquestioning acceptance of the Bible ties one down and prevents one from searching for truth as freely and effectively as one could. Since God is not dead, I do not believe that reading a book written several thousand years ago is the best way to find the truth about God, any more than reading a biography of a living person could be as useful as interacting with them and the people who know them.