Well, I suppose one could find information about the Second Coming on the internet, and perhaps in books because everyone has an opinion. I would still think the most reliable source to find out about the Second Coming of Christ would be to check out the Bible and see what Christ Himself actually had to say about it.
There isn't any reliable way to verify that "christ himself" said any of what slef-serving hearsay stories report. The source is therefore unreliable and cannot be used to verify itself, (in a 'it says right here that what's written right here is true' manner).
There are MANY gullible people of all types. Just because someone has "faith" doesn't make them a gullible person.
Since "faith" is believing something, sans any evidence, that constitutes gullibility. If someone were to assure you that "Falconer02" does indeed have an invisible pink unicorn in his garage, would you take that on 'faith' alone or, want some evidence? (not consisting of invisible pink unicorn road apples)
I have found the opposite to be true. There are many believers that know WHO they believe in ...
No, they _believe_ they know, (that isn't knowing, that's having 'faith' - which means sans evidence).
... they know WHAT they believe, they know WHY they believe ...
I disagree. These 'believers' apparently aren't examining "what" they believe very closely, (otherwise they'd openly acknowledge that "what they believe" has no evidentiary basis and they are simply taking it as a matter a 'faith', again sans evidence). As to "why" they believe such superstitions, no doubt the non-reasons for it vary somewhat. Were I to speculate, it could be extrapolated that many of those non-reasons are related to fears.
... and therefore they aren't gullible enough to just fall for anything that comes along (or everything that someone says).
That conclusion does not logically follow from the premise; believing one credulous concept without evidence does not lead to the conclusion that another credeulous concept will be subject to skepticism, (it does however, tend toward an opposite extrapolation). Be that as it may, there is no reason to infer that a gullible person is either selective or, nonselective about their gullibility.