the monotheistic ‘take over’ of paganism was not something that happened for nefarious reasons, although of course pagans would feel insulted by such an inquisition. it was instead the result of a more critical examination of theological logic that led philosophers to the idea of a single god. now of course all this theological theorizing, whether it be in the crude minds of semi-literate tribal priests or formally educated philosophers and logicians such as aquinas, is still operating within the anthropomorphic fallacy. in fact, aristotle was perhaps the only one of the ancients who didn’t fall into this error, but his theory of the indifferent prime mover would become subordinated to and used for supplanting new anthropomorphic theories that emerged in the abrahamic religions. these errors remained until the appearance of spinoza, who was the terminus to theology. elsewhere i wrote:
so we see the progression: animism > paganism > henotheism > monotheism (anthropomorphic) > pantheism (spinozist).
but while the origins of monotheism were not malevolent, it became a malevolent force, primarly as a tool for sustaining cultural solidarity and obedience in civilizations in which ruling, aristocratic (bourgeois) classes were emerging and needed to secure their power by lessening the threat of revolution by the lower classes. rulers found that theological philosophers were especially useful. calvin, for example, was the quintessential ruling class philosopher hack… even more so than leibniz, descartes and aquinas.
but it was the consolidating power of monotheism that was of interest to rulers. this is why christianity was so useful to the roman empire; it settled conflicting paganistic cultures within the empire and brought everyone together under one pacifying opiate.