That kind of sounds like two pretty different complaints.

I can see the issue with the “changed their mind” comment. Of course armageddon accelerationist evangelicals aren’t going to change their minds, that position comes from deeply held convictions and values that are for many inextricable from their faith. To suggest that they would abandon their enthusiasm for the coming of the savior and the age of messianic peace that he brings with him is kind of dismissive of how seriously evangelicals take the topic of the second coming.

Conversely, the complaint about the enthusiasm about the timing of the return of Christ is kind of a head scratcher for me. You seem to assert that Jesus’ return is fundamental to your beliefs but you personally would prefer that he arrives later. Like it is important and central to your faith but it is also offensively presumptive to assert that anybody would actually want it to happen.

It is kind of like you are simultaneously complaining that he is taking the evangelical position on the second coming both too seriously and not seriously enough.

> You don't seem to be engaging in good faith.

You posted actual nonsense and then declined to say if you are for or against telling people that salmonella is real.

Anyway, in good faith

> Obviously that depends on context.

This makes sense. Context matters, and it is important to imagine some when it is missing. For example, in this exchange you saw a stranger on the internet post “rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk” and, in a vacuum of any relevant information, pictured a world where they work at Samsung in their Awful Spyware Division and started posting from that premise.

Or just saying it at all FUDs up the vibe and ruins the context?

The point you are making is either that it is important to invent context if you feel FUD, or that the wrong context for certain correct information is “the context wherein it is shared”.

Can you clarify which is it?

Either we agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk and you just sort of imagine me working for a terrible company,

or

We both agree that rooting your phone can void your warranty and pose a security risk but you and I are the only people that should know that. Any context where this fact that we agree about could be shared is made inappropriate by its inclusion.

Like are we dealing with hallucinations or are we dealing with Untouchable Facts

Amillennialism does not necessarily mean a wholesale rejection of the notion of biblical prophecy. If anything it is largely a disagreement about what the fulfillment of biblical prophecy will look like.

That aside, of course there are always small movements in every faith, but that isn’t usually super meaningful or helpful when talking about the larger group. I’m sure you can find some Catholics that don’t believe in transubstantiation but nobody is out here painting the church as being Eucharist-neutral.

Could be talking about, for one example, Christians United for Israel, a single evangelical organization with ten million American members.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_United_for_Israel

Are those ten million Evangelicals somehow not part of the mainstream? Like is it ten million outcasts that the majority of evangelicals do not claim? That seems unlikely due to the fact that the count of self-reported Christian Zionists is in the multiple tens of millions in the US.

https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/news/2021/10/26/video-the-christ...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-sizeable-us-demographic-many...

What I think is going on here is you either do want to speak for all evangelicals, and want to convince people that they all believe what you believe, or you are somehow part of a community in which you haven’t heard of or spoken to nearly any of its members. These are the only two ways to make sense of the “who are you talking about?” question; you are either being willfully untruthful about tens of millions of evangelicals, or you simply, somehow, haven’t heard about tens of millions of evangelicals.

What evangelical church doesn’t believe in the second coming or the significance of the holy land?

Like your pastor, at your evangelical church, preaches that these things are not literal?

Edit: As someone that grew up evangelical, and has had evangelical friends my entire life, it is very strange to see someone casually say that the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an evangelical thing. It stands in stark contrast to the theology that’s fundamental to the faith.

It is literally as odd as seeing someone get mad when another person says that sainthood or the Eucharist are fundamental tenets to Catholicism. I would certainly want them to clarify what exactly their priest was saying to make them feel otherwise.

It is a real religion with a real theology! “Evangelical” isn’t a vibe, it’s a distinct system of worship! Biblical prophecy is very fundamental and a strongly-held belief and value that is taught in every evangelical church I have ever heard of!