how you do accept Yahweh, the supreme God etc. etc. without denying all others, isn't that sort of necessary (if not, why did they need to destroy the pagan beliefs if they were not contradictory).
I accept the possibilities of all dieties that are possible (as it would be illogical to categorically deny possibilities for which there is no method of falsification). I accept and believe in Yahweh because of my personal experiences and my studies of history, philosophy, and theology.
Of the gods whose existence are possible (there exists the possibility of gods that no one has ever thought of or identified, but they don't really matter to me, as I apparently don't matter enough to them for them to make any attempt to contact humanity, unless you've been reading too much Lovecraft, in which case that's a good thing), I believe that one of the pantheons is correct or at least on the right track toward the being/consciousness/entity/existence who is responsible for the universe in which we reside (as I believe, through my studies and experiences, that our universe is not a cosmic accident that worked out in our favor, but was the result of a conscious and intentional action).
From the large number of supposed dieties that are reputed to have interacted with or influenced mankind, I believe that Yahweh is indeed the one responsible for our universe, as "His" tale makes the most sense to me and seems the most credible and substantiated.
Now of course that doesn't really answer your question but I felt it was neccesary background and clarification to continue my explanation.. The reason I can acknowledge the possibility of other gods being "real" while still claiming to be a follower of Yahweh and His Christ is because of the concept of Faith. Faith is a belief, but because it is a belief that is not founded on absolute knowledge (faith is non-axiomatic), but on a personally determined value of likelihood or trust in the accuracy and legitimacy of the data one DOES possess (meaning it may take more or less data to convince someone, depending on the individual). I'm not a proponent of the "blind faith" or the "Sola Fide" ("by faith alone") doctrine that is pervasive amongst the teachings of my fellow brothers and sisters (particularly Calvinist Protestants, but has seeped into most other Protestant denominations) in Christ, because Scripture never called for blind faith, but the use of reason and intellect (if you doubt me, I can dig up the Scriptural references for you).
I have Faith that God exists, and that Faith is grounded in data which is sufficient to convince me, as well as experiential knowledge which contributes to my convictions. Personal experience can, in part, be objective. However, it's objective value only extends to the one who experiences, so my personal experiences aren't of much objective value to you, as you cannot verify their veracity. If I have a "spiritual" experience, let's say, I can acknowledge that I experienced SOMETHING, and do so objectively. Now it could be due to a variety of factors (chemical imbalance, nerve problems, intoxication, or even possibly spiritual intervention, etc), and the cause I attribute to them will probably be ultimately subjective, but having the "experience" is objective data. I can make my interpretation of that experiential knowledge more objective by falsifying testable explanations, but ultimately it will come down to a matter of subjectivity, if I rule out all known explanations.
All my experiential knowledge, coupled with my historical knowledge, my philosophical knowledge, my scientific knowledge, and my theological/mythological knowledge culminates in the ultimate conclusion that I have experienced what I believe to be God, that God is Yahweh, Christ was who he claimed to be and therefore a facet of Yahweh, and all the claims that Yahweh makes through His Word are either literally, metaphorically, or allegorically true.
As for the destruction of Pagan beliefs by those who claimed to follow Christ, I honestly don't know. It's arrogant for me to assume I know why other people do what they do. But as for me, I don't fear Pagan beliefs, as I believe my God to be supreme. And after all, they could be correct, it's a possibility. I would guess that they had too little faith in their own God and thus felt it neccesary to remove competitors. I see no need for such things. I find other faiths interesting and have studied most world mythologies and religions extensively. You'll have to ask a fundamentalist, I guess. I try to follow Christ as Christ commanded, I care not for the teachings or false authorities of modern men.
and why do you believe in the trinity idea rather than just Yahweh. wasn't that a sort of attempted explanation by a later church, long after Yahweh handed down the commandments and the like? Do you also believe in 'original sin' or other ideas which are attemptedly invented by the church in trying to make sense of something? if so, why were these not covered from the beginning?
There are many passages in the Old Testament which suggest a coming Messiah. The Jews, of course, deny that Christ was He, but by my understanding, Christ fulfilled every aspect and attribute of the Messiah foretold. There's also several instances of historical evidence which suggest Christ's miraculous nature. Several non-Christian sources (such as the Jewish document "Talmud") found it neccesary to invent a story which explains why Christ could work Miracles. Other non-Christian documents refer to him as a sorceror. No documents referencing him ever call him a fake. Even within the Christian texts, when Christ performed seemingly miraculous acts, the Pharisees (the Jewish teachers of the Law, basically the rulers of the Jews under the Roman Empire) never accused him of being a fake or a charlatan. They accused him of being demon-possessed, of working miracles through demonic magic. Then there's the matter of He and His Disciples. I find it hard to believe that so many men would willingly die (despite numerous attempts to recant, escape, or be set free on denial of their claims) for a cause they knew was false, from which they would never recieve any benefit.
There's no record or indication that suggest Christ nor his Disciples ever benefitted in any way from their ministry. Which brings me to the Trilemma Argument, as proposed by Mr. Lewis (I'm right fond of his philosophy and theology, you'll find):
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
So basically, it's a system of logical progression. I believe that a God exists. I believe Scripture has the best and most accurate explanation of who God is. Scripture refers to and gives definition to Yahweh, the apparent true name of God. Scripture tells of a Messiah to come. Christ fulfills all the known OT teachings regarding the coming Messiah. There is a lot of ancient controversy surrounding the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Christ makes some claims regarding his nature. I'm inclined to believe Him, based on all the aforementioned reasons, and other evidences (such as it's unlikely that so many men would die for something they believed or knew to be false without having anything to gain from it), as well as the amazing historicity of Scripture.
Princeston did a study on the New Testament. They've found that there are over 25,000 copies, editions, fragments, and pieces of the New Testament that have been unearthed from various regions, languages, and time periods. The next most prodigious ancient document is the Illiad, coming in at less than 700. So it's the most prodigious ancient document, and therefore the most readily studied and most easily verifiable/falsifiable based on the number of comparisons. Their studies revealed that between the 25,000+ copies, there was a 99.5% agreement between the different texts, and the 0.5% was only a matter of grammer and punctuation, and did not affect the actual contents of the message. So basically, the New Testament is among the most historically accurate documents (meaning it's veracity and legitimacy as far as it's passage through time and its lack of changes and alterations) in existence.
So these and many other reasons lead me to the conclusion that Christ is who He said He is. And if Scripture is correct, and Christ is who He says He is, then that must mean that the Holy Spirit (the third facet of the trinity) is also likely to be what Christ claims it to be. Hence, my belief in the Trinity. The New Testament is laced with Christ's admissions and other people's admissions that He was the Messiah, and therefore essentially the Avatar of Yahweh. I'm sure any google search will yield a plethora of verses detailing this. I don't believe it to be an explanation by a later church, as the teachings of the Messiah to come were written long before Christ's coming. Furthermore, the New Testament, as I said, is full of such Messianic implications. By the time this doctrine was finalized by the Council of Nicea, it was pretty much unanimous that Christ was indeed not only a part of God, but on equal standing with the Father in his share of the Godhead. After all, the vote was well over 300 to 2. But there's even earlier evidence in the writings of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus that the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ was widespread and well-known.
As for concepts such as Original Sin, it depends on the individual concept. There are many of teachings in Scripture that are not explicitly, literally stated, but are implicit, and copiously present throughout the texts. I'm not a Biblical literalist. I believe that much of Scripture is literal, and much of it is figurative (metaphoric, allegorical, etc). The Christian life is not one that can nor should be lived lightly. If you want to understand the Word of God in all its facets you have to delve into it. Simply skimming it like the afternoon paper will not yield you anything of worth or merit. Like any philosophical or theological text you really have to engrain yourself in it and meditate on it and its implications. So yes, I believe there are some teachings and concepts that are not explicitly stated but are of the same importance as the explicit teachings, and that they can only be gleaned through careful study and revelation through the Spirit. I'm also a fan of using Hermeneutics to ensure that you don't let your Scriptural interpretations run wild. Helps keep things in perspective.
As for Original Sin itself, no I don't believe in Original Sin. I believe in the inherited ability to distinguish right from wrong passed down from Adam, and therefore the burden of our sins being upon our own shoulders, but not that we are inherently sinful. I believe we are inherently flawed, as we were not created with the ability to distinguish, nor were we meant to have such an ability, and by taking on something too great for us, we have been deformed spiritually. But I do not believe, nor do I see scriptural evidence for the teaching of Original Sin.
Sorry about all the rambling, Christian theology is a lot more complex than most people realize, and I wanted to be sure I was fully explaining myself. Hopefully that will answer your questions, if not let me know.
