If you don't mind Kat, I'll try to answer these.
1. Do liberal Christians reject the concepts of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, eternal separation from God due to rejecting Christ (hell), the in errancy of the Scriptures, rebuking sin in another believer, and striving for holiness as Christ called for?
Perhaps you could clarify regeneration of the spirit. I don't see liberals rejecting that. Liberals don't necessarily reject Hell, we just disagree with its nature. The notion of Hell being a physical torture chamber where humans are ripped apart by demons for all eternity is not Biblical. The Hell doctrine is not as clear as it seems. The Old Testament does not support ANY of the Christian doctrine of Hell. And there is a decent amount of evidence indicating that the Christian version was influenced from the Persians. I think the NT actually supports Annihilationism more than eternal concious torment. But I don't see why Liberals supporting that is a bad thing. Do you like the idea of torture?
We have a good reason for rejecting inerrancy. It's neither Biblical, historical, or supported by evidence. Biblical inerrancy (the notion that all Bibles are completely without error) was developed in the 19th and 20th Century along with the Fundamentalist movement. The Bible has not historically always been considered 100% literal and incapable of having flaws. Add to that the overwhelming evidence from the early church fathers and scholars themselves (Origen, Jerome, Tertullian, etc.) who specifically state they personally witnessed the early scriptures being dishonestly manipulated and altered, makes it quite clear changes were made. Would you claim all of them are lying about what they saw happened to the Bible?
King James himself admitted to ordering his translators to alter the KJV to conform to Church of England teachings and to make it more "Christianized". We have strong evidence that the early manuscripts were corrected as many as 20,000 times. The verse where Jesus says, "He who is without sin cast the first stone" does not exist in the earliest manuscript. It was a later addition. There are glaring differences between translations. For example, the NIV compared to the KJV. They have entire verses that were deleted from one, but exist in the other.
In other words, we have very good reason to reject true inerrancy of any manuscripts/Bibles we have access to. Claiming only the originals are inerrant is meaningless since they don't exist and we can't prove it. We do know, that as soon as the first copies were made, they started being corrupted.
2. Do liberal Christians reject the concept of sin altogether and claim it's merely "personal interpretation"?
I've never heard a liberal reject sin. We just might disagree on what constitutes sin. What the Bible says about certain so called sins is personal interpretation. It is 100% impossible to not interpret the Bible.
3. Do liberal Christians bash evangelicals about striving for holiness?
We don't view it as a strive for holiness. It manifests as an attempt to attack anyone who doesn't believe and think exactly as they do. There is nothing holy about a self-righteous, I know all attitude.
4. Do liberal Christians believe the only passages in the Bible that pertain to them are the ones in red print and everything else was merely the jaded opinions of men?
Much of the Bible is the opinions of men. Unless of course we want to claim God ordered men to dash babies on rocks. Other points are addressed specifically to a certain culture. No Christian on this planet follows the majority of the Torah, and yet they will use it to condemn people they don't like. Mosaic law was written for the Israelites. It applies to no one else. Paul addressed the Gentile churches in Greece and Rome. Paul was not necessarily addressing the United States with all of his statements, because our society is not like Greeks and Romans. You can't arbitrarily take Paul's words out of the context of the cultures he was dealing with. Even the Gospels in some regard don't apply to us. When was the last time you saw a Christian drink poison with no harm or lay their hands on people and heal them?
5. Do liberal Christians believe all paths lead to heaven, even if they are paths that blatantly disregard God's authority and supremacy?
Most liberals are not universalists. Even so, there are certain verses that could indicate it as a possibility. Who are we to claim God can't save anyone he wants?
6. Do liberal Christians believe all one must do is believe Jesus existed and be tolerant in order to profess Christianity?
No liberal claims merely believing he existed is sufficient. However, accepting Jesus as our Savior, and following his 2 most important commandments, is all he says is required. Everything else stems from that.
7. Do liberal Christians believe it's okay to support things that are the complete antithesis to the Scriptures, all for the sake of being tolerant and loving?
Here is a big problem. You guys assume us disagreeing with your interpretation of scripture is the same as opposing scripture. Until you guys get over the absurd notion that you are not interpreting and accept that you are capable of being wrong this will always be an argument. The Bible has been used as justification for some of the worst attrocities in human history, and those Christians were as positive they were right as you are that you are right. This absolutist notion is very very dangerous, and we're not wiling to call people abominations or spawns of Satan based on the Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Otherwise we'll be back to burning witches at the stake.
8. Do liberal Christians act and speak in a manner befitting of a Christian (being separate from the world, being in the world, but not of the world), or would no one readily identify them as a Christian based on the words and deeds alone? Would someone be shocked to discover this person is a professing Christian?
I can't indentify the overwhelming majority of conservatives as being Christian based on their words and deeds. How is this exclusive to liberals?
9. Do liberal Christians prefer the company of liberal non-christians, because they're so open-minded, than actual believers?
I prefer non-believers because they tend to be far more educated, more compassionate, less judgemental, less hypocritical, and yes open-minded. This is in my experience, and in no way represents all conservatives/fundamentalists. I'm speaking from experience, not as a general rule. In my personal opinion, and no offense intended, I find Fundamentalism and Conservatism to be the biggest threats to Christianity. Especially fundamentalism, which isn't even historic - it was a movement invented in the last 2 Centuries.
I hope this answered some of your questions. None of them were intended to offend, but you are painting a very broad brush against liberals if you believe all those statements about everyone of us.