What did pagan religions think of each other, or Christianity?

Pagans mostly just equated their gods with foreign gods, and added whatever didn't fit.

Religious discussion among pagans was more philosophical. Paganism was a folk religion, not a scholarly one like Judaism was, that involved religious texts and years of study of them. Paganism's intellectual aspect came from independent philosophical schools that, while often adhering the religions, where actually a process completely and utterly divorced from the worship, which was mostly a political dimension.

>>1631534
Romans were fond of Eastern cults, Egyptian particularly. Isis was very popular, Mithras was another big one. I can't think of the Romans picking up any Celtic or Germanic gods-- they definitely didn't the Celtic faith, burnt down sacred forests in Britain IIRC. Most people weren't terribly fond of Christians, but at the same time the persecutions were greatly exaggerated.

>>1633167
Problem about christians is that they were quite pussified when compared to the pagan religions

>>1631534
>Did Roman pagans ever discuss the aspects of the faiths of Germanics, Celts and other neighbors not worshiping the Roman/Greek Pantheon?
The wouldn't understand your question.

Caesar went to conquer the Gauls and said they worship Venus, Mercury, etc.

Nobody was bothered by it. They're all Indoeuropean religions anyway.

Even outside of actual Indoeuropean cultures, the interpretatio graeca caused Herodotus to speak of Ishtar/Inanna by calling her Aphrodite concerning a ritual he was displeased with.

The pagan pantheons may have had violence in their mythology and passionate war gods and heroes such as Ares and Achilles, but they were in fact very tolerant, universalist - perennialist even: my gods are your gods.

I know it's hard to believe, but all the religious violence that plagues today's world in the CURRENT YEAR would NOT be at home in a world with theomachies, blood sacrifices, brigands, slavery, etc.

And as >>1633167 says, Romans even went out of their way to import foreign gods to add them to their pantheon. Likewise the Greeks were very fascinated by the Egyptian religion.

Pagans weren't a rigid as Abrahamics

>Hey, barbarians, you know how you worship X?
>Well X is just your primitive way of understanding our god Y!
Basically. All sots of whacky syncreticism happened. Like Hermes' and Set's dog headed kid. And that doesn't even get into mystery cults which usually had better afterlives than the rather dull Indo-European "Bleak place that's kind of sucky".

As for how Pagans interacted with (one group of) Christians, look into Julian the Apostates "Against the Galileans". It brings forth a number of arguments coming from a number of groups that we see today. Like the Scientists, it says that Christianity/Judaism's claims are silly. Like the bibliographers, it says that the books of the Bible are contradictory and the result of political meddling rather than wisdom or revelation. Like the nationalists, it says that Jews are foul and bitter beings and their petty manchildgod is not worthy of the worship of Romans who should instead worship gods of strength and honor and blah blah blah.

Julian the Apostate aside, another example of Roman negative reaction to Christianity is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

>>1633251
This.

Lots and lots and lots of freedom of dogma, acknowledging the validity of other paths, etc.

If you want an idea of what would these religions look like if they survived all the way to the present day, you could start with other ancestral religions like Hinduism - which is Indoeuropean at that - and Shinto.

>>1633263
More importantly, Julian the Apostate was spot on with the inherent contradictions between the Jewish parent religion and Christianity.

When he talks about the deity of Jesus he sounds exactly like Bart Ehrman, except Ehrman didn't live in the 4th Century.

>>1633280
I think it's wrong to think of "Paganism" as having "Freedom of dogma". I'm quite sure many cults and traditions were very dogmatic, it's just "Paganism" (as a catch-all term for the native religions of the various people of Rome/Europe in this case) was so wide and all encompassing of a group that you of course can't have any centralized dogma.

Hinduism has dogmatic, centralized, rigid traditions with it; those traditions just don't encompass the entire category of "Hinduism".

>>1633297
The point is, if the folk religion isn't being suppressed by the official priesthood on the grounds of being allegedly hetereodox, and the laymen are free to practice their traditions or even innovations, then what you have is freedom of religion by any other name within your tradition.

The pagan religions were religions of orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy anyway.