More spin. See, you even attempt to spin my mention of spin. It's okay, it's a typical liberal trait so I'll overlook it and attempt to get to my point. Since you cannot answer my very simple questions, I'll post them again so as not to be missed among a giant wall of text:
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?
Partly yes and partly no.
Regeneration, yes.
Almost by definition liberals reject inerrancy.
To be honest, I'm unclear on what exactly hell is, and how many people (if any) will end up there, if it's even a place one can end up in. Jesus certainly warned people that they had better be fruitful or they were likely to end up in God's garbage heap (note the meaning of Gehenna). But this was typically a warning to Jewish believers, not to what we'd currently called unsaved.
Rebuking sin, yes, in relationships where this is appropriate. However where we don't have a specific responsibility or relationship where this is appropriate, the responsibility not to judge governs. It would be very unusual for rebuke to be appropriate in an Internet forum.
Holiness, I have issues with. I've looked through the NT. Typically holiness is seen as a property of God, and if we're lucky, the Church. Jesus seems to say that Christians can't expect to be holy. They can only strive to be obedient. A focus on holiness characterized Jesus' opponents.
2. Do liberal Christians reject the concept of sin altogether and claim it's merely "personal interpretation"?
No. We may, however reject *your* concept of sin and believe that it's a personal interpretation. Unfortunately the situations where this is most likely to be true are also ones that the rules of CF prohibit discussion on.
3. Do liberal Christians bash evangelicals about striving for holiness?
I don't bash anyone. I respect evangelicals for striving after Christ. I feel that sometimes the way they do it is misguided.
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?
This is far more extreme than I or other liberal Christians would say. I accept God's authority. I think it shows through Scripture in a variety of ways, from direct speech with the prophets and Jesus, to accounts of how he dealt with Israel, from which we are left to draw our own conclusions (although with guidance from the prophets and various NT writings).
In today's climate, a few passages from Paul's letters seem the most contentious. I don't believe Paul claimed that everything he said was a prophetic word. Indeed he denied it in one place. So I see his role as the earliest witness to Jesus' teachings, and how they were interpreted in the early church.
5. Do liberal Christians believe all paths lead to heaven, even if they are paths that blatantly disregard God's authority and supremacy?
Absolutely not. Many paths lead away from God. Whether God will find some way to reconcile people on those paths with himself is up to him. But there is definitely a difference between right and wrong, and following God and rejecting him.
6. Do liberal Christians believe all one must do is believe Jesus existed and be tolerant in order to profess Christianity?
No. I think we have to acknowledge him as Lord. I may however permit a wider variation in what that means than you do. I would not, however classify a non-Christian such as Gandhi who admired Jesus as a Christian.
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?
No. However we may think that some of what you support is the antithesis of Scripture.
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 am quite sure that everyone around me knows I'm a Christian. I would expect that would be true of most Christians. I'm not sure that I'd agree with you on all specifics of what is befitting a Christian.
9. Do liberal Christians prefer the company of liberal non-christians, because they're so open-minded, than actual believers?
Boy, that's complex. There's good and bad open-mindedness. Everyone needs to be open to correction, in both behavior and beliefs. And closed mindededness is often a part of a kind of pride that I think the Bible has problems with. But there's a difference to being open for correction, and humble, and being indifferent. I suspect it's the latter you're concerned about.
I find people attractive for all kinds of reasons, including shared interests, and a shared approach to life. There are many conservative Christians I run into who I wouldn't be likely to be friends with. But there are many that I would. Ditto with non-Christians. Open mindedness is just one of my criteria, and it's of the modest sort I just mentioned.
When I was in college I got to know members of other religions. I found I was closest to those who took their religion seriously, although not in such a way as to reject members of other religions.
My closest friends are other members of my church. I am also naturally friends with people I work with, although probably not quite as close. A lot of the people I work with are also Christian. My closest friend is both, i.e. a member of church and someone who is working with me.