Compare And Contrast Zoroastrianism And Eurasia

The Axial Age was marked by blooming schools of thought in the subject of religion and philosophy across Eurasia. However, the sudden emergence of Hinduism in India, Confucianism and Daoism in China, and the development of Zoroastrianism, erroneously leads people into assuming that these new ideas exploded in Eurasia and the new ideas spread with acceptance like wildfire. Trade was indeed vibrant and foreign goods were sought after by the elite, but the flow of goods, ideas, and people were still marked by “low and slow” productivity. In addition, the effects on the receiving end were much less than revolutionary. For set-in-stone cultural frames to change, it took tens if not hundreds of years of the steady flow of ideas and supporters into the specific region. The difference in religious ideals across Eurasia is made evident by comparing the primary sources, which date from 700 BCE to 200 BCE of Ancient Israel to those of Ancient India. The religious documents from India and Israel both contain basic foundation of religion—living life for a god—but other than that, these religions differ so greatly that the lack of diffusion of both religions show the slow trade and the lack of integration even if religious ideals were spread into a specific region. The first primary source is an excerpt from the book of First

The Israelites actively, gave sacrifices to God out of worship and the belief that God was on their side and would help the Israelites throughout life. However, Indians had a different relationship with the god they believed in. They put less focus on the intervention of a deity while on Earth, believing in a god who was not actively involved in the earthly life. Indians believed that humans made choices. Even the most religiously devout—the monks—would only give their life to God when they were too sick to perform social duties on