Paganism vs. Monotheism

[Mudhammam]

Looking for your thoughts on the difference. Thoughts on how followers represent themselves. Do you think they're all the same? And go...

The differences? Hmm... let's see... monotheists believe there is one God at the head of a hierarchy that includes animals, man, and occasionally, spiritual beings such as angels and daemons; pagans believe that, while there is one Supreme Being or First Cause, his immediate creation or generative powers include a plurality of deities who reign over respective domains within the world and whom are capable of being propitiated by the prayers and sacrifices of humans... 

Thoughts on how followers represent themselves... um... well, the Greek and Roman pagans were typically much less zealous, and were even free to express licentious skepticism, in comparison with their obstinate Jewish, Zoroastrian, and Christian counterparts; As David Hume writes in section IX of his Natural History of Religion, 

...idolatry is attended with this evident advantage, that, by limiting the powers and functions of its deities, it naturally admits the Gods of other sects and nations to a share of divinity, and renders all the various deities, as well as rites, ceremonies, or traditions, compatible with each other. Theism is opposite both in its advantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes one sole deity, the perfection of reason and goodness, it should, if justly prosecuted, banish everything frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman from religious worship, and set before men the most illustrious example, as well as the most commanding motives of justice and benevolence. These mighty advantages are not indeed over-balanced (for that is not possible), but somewhat diminished, by inconveniences, which arise from the vices and prejudices of mankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowleged, the worship of other deities is regarded as absurd and impious. Nay, this unity of object seems naturally to require the unity of faith and ceremonies, and furnishes designing men with a pretence for representing their adversaries as profane, and the objects of divine as well as human vengeance. For as each sect is positive that its own faith and worship are entirely acceptable to the deity, and as no one can conceive that the same being should be pleased with different and opposite rites and principles, the several sects fall naturally into animosity, and mutually discharge on each other that sacred zeal and rancour, the most furious and implacable of all human passions.

The entire essay is worth a read. Finally, no, they're not all the same... Duh.