That's strikes me as a childish question under the serious circumstances of what I am saying. Being immature is bad enough, and you certainly are being immature.
I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to help you. I would hope that you would do the same if our roles were reversed.
You need to start thinking about that, not scoff at my admonitions. Besides, the difference between being immature and being a reprobate is not necessarily as obvious as some people think. Contrary to what many of the well-known DTS faculty and graduates teach in an almost emphatic way, many "carnal Christians" will prove to be no Christians at all.
So, let's get back on the topic. At best, the premill position is an immature one.
I have pointed out over and over and over that 2 Peter 3 destroys your position. As far as I can tell, you are refusing to face this because you know you have no really good counterargument.
I take issue with your assertion equating transubstantiation and premillenialism. One is almost flatly contradicted by Hebrews 9-10, as well as a few other passages (as well as defying all common sense. It is self-evident the host does not become flesh and the wine does not become blood. They maintain their own chemical identities.) The other is at worst an oversimplification of a still partly veiled topic.
As I examined amillenialism, I was struck by the hoops that amils take to explain the book of Revelation. I read Hendikson's More than Conquerors. The writer went to great pains to apply all of the tribulation to the past 2000 years of church history, which is at best a stretch. Everything is an allegory -- nothing means what it says. IT raises some VERY excellant points, but by no means is conclusive.
There are reasonable cases to be made either way: I remain premillenial, but have a respect for the other position. Should not some respect be accorded in our direction? Christians may disagree on doctrines -- how on earth is that a sign of immaturity?