Studying the history of apocalypticism, I'm mostly amused by the fact that everyone thought Jesus was going to return around the turn of the *last* millennium--A.D. 1000. That's really what kind of kicked all this off, mind you. So Jesus didn't come, as they predicted, so we spent the next 850 years doing illogical numerological formulas, where the only thing they all had in common was that "the end" would always occur in the near future.
So after the Millerites goofed up and the world didn't end in 1854, exploding into the modern-day Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, they came up with the "ingenius" idea of always putting "the end" in the near future, but never setting a date for it. Hence, modern apocalypticism.
I'll be honest: I'm willing to believe in a Second Coming, but I'm not willing to believe in the militant way it's supposed to happen. The theology behind the book of Revelation actually originates from Zoroastrian theology--which was supposed to be the details of the *First* Coming that the Pharisees expected. Jesus doesn't live up to the Pharisees' expectations of being a warrior Messiah that vanquishes their enemies, elevates them to a worldly kingdom of infinite power, and leads to Judgment Day, so when He is far more peaceful than expected, they reject Him. So what do we do? We shift their "warrior Messiah" theology into the Book of Revelation, and, essentially, become "Christian Pharisees." Great logic, eh? I'm waiting for Jesus Part II to be as peaceful as the last time, essentially pissing off the modern-day Pharisees expecting a bloodbath.
But I've always found it puzzling how an infinitely loving God and His equally infinitely loving Son would stoop to such a murderous zeal. But that is, essentially, the theology that we deem "the end of the world."
Melon