You actually convoluted two points into 1 (I made them different colors above). Lets look at each.
Of course I did. If one does not have individual freedom to act, then one cannot be held responsible for one's actions (there are plenty of religions that use this as an excuse for bad behaviour).
Matthew: Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12
What does that prove? People in those days were keen on celestial fire and brimstone. Jesus was offering people simple a choice: to spend a life doing wrong, or to attempt something better. He didn't say you would be prevented
from choosing the former. However, the whole point of any personal choice is that you accept the consequences of your actions. In this case, he was pointing out that he wasn't going to put up with any crap - at least not in the putative afterlife. He didn't mention anything about instant (here on earth) retribution.
Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6 (clearly the Christians changed this when they needed gentile converts)
Because, at that time, there was an ongoing low-level conflict between Jews and their neighbours (plus ca change, eh?). That particular passage, in context, simply tells the disciples to focus on Jews first. It was a purely practical instruction: the Jews would (probably) have been more receptive, and there would be (slightly) less chance of a lynching. He wasn't implying the Gentiles were untouchables. That was a Jewish idea that he (himself, not future Christians) actually tried to demolish, but I think he knew he wasn't going to get far with that during his lifetime.
AND THE BEST!!!!!!: "He that is not with me is against me." 12:30 (REAL TOLERANT EH?) also in Luke 11:23
Again, I don't see what that has to do with tolerance. He was preaching that he was the one and only way to salvation. One can either accept that, or not accept it. Logically, there are no other choices. That's all that's implied by that sentence.
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11 (also Matthew 10:14-15 in case you want another reference)
No, that isn't what was said. " It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (KJV). Again, nothing about instant destruction. They had a choice to reject the message, but in this case, rejection is mutual.
Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
So what's the problem? Why would he be interested in saving those who didn't believe? It rather defeats the object, doesn't it? Presumably, if they didn't believe, they wouldn't want to be saved anyway, since being saved involves spending eternity in the company of God - not a desirable outcome if you don't like what he has to say.
In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27
Oh FFS. They were violent times, dominated by feudal rulers. Life was cheap. The whole point of those parables was to explain things in everyday language. They probably still make sense to a Somali, but they don't make much sense to us. I don't get any impression that the feudal warlord in that parable was supposed to represent God. Frankly, I don't understand that particular parable, but it seems to be saying "don't just sit on your ass and expect good stuff to happen - you need to make it happen".
None of the above has anything to do with personal freedom. Jesus spent very little time saying "thou shalt not", and tried to sweep away some of the fossilized Jewish laws that did. He did
spend a lot of time telling people to use their intellect and to develop a conscience, both of which are important features of any free society.
Just look at the MANY verses condemning the Jews (not just the Jews in the days of Jesus, but the Jews forever and ever) for killing Jesus. (do I need to quote them? theyre easy to find). That is NOT personal responsibility as you said, as the descendants of those that crucified Jesus did nothing, only those that lived in Jesus' day.
They were condemned not for killing him, but for refusing to accept that it was wrong. Jews are no less eligible as Christians than anyone else - in fact, as you pointed out above, they were Jesus's primary focus. Besides, his crucifixion was the whole point of him being here, and it had to happen at the hands of the Jews. The crucial part was that he was prepared to forgive them for doing so; but forgiveness always has to be asked for.
Oh geez golly, them modern, left wing Christian apologists who want to revision their religion in line with contemporary, modern, progressive values sure do like to say that. But just read the New Testament (I just provided a tiny amount of intolerant verses). Those who think Christianity promotes tolerance, acceptance, Individual freedom and personal responsibility need to go read their "good" book.
The verses you quoted are intolerant of the Hitlers, Gadafis, and Mugabes of this world. They are intolerant of people who make it their life's work to cause misery and destruction; those who degrade humans to the level of animals and refuse to allow them to aspire to something better. "Tolerance" does not imply unconditional acceptance of any and all behaviour. That's just cultural relativism. It surely goes without saying that any religion will accept some behaviour as "good" and others as "bad".
The unusual difference, in the case of Christianity, is that the individual is expected to develop his own moral compass, rather than just adhere to a bunch of rules. The latter method, I believe, is what theologians call "salvation by works", and is the basic theme of Islam as well as many other religions.