If a new way of teaching students was to be introduced by the highest authority on education for example. This person sends a messenger to one school in N. Dakota to teach them this new way. A few years later, this person realizes that there were little benefits from his first messenger, so he sends another messenger to another school in N. Dakota, and so on. Every few years this super education authority keeps sending messengers to N. Dakota, and non to California, or New York where the majority of students are. Would that be an efficient way to reach the students?
I hope you can understand what I was trying to say, and attempt to answer me if you are able.
How would it be, if there was one teacher, and one lesson taught, that all of these students of this one teacher learned such radically different messages?
See, Hindi, Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam teach very, very different things. And people who try to say that they are all different ways to the same truth are actually asserting something which is contradictory to itself, because to assert that each way is true is to assert that the portions of each religion which differ from other religions is not true. And to say that is to say that every religion is false.
There is truth in other religions. But there are lies in other religions. And there are dangerous misunderstandings in other religions.
Did the great teacher send only one teachers' assistant? Absolutely not! But everyone who is sent by the great teacher recognizes the first teacher, and concurs with him, so that there shall be unity.
I hope and pray that God sends an angelic messenger to you personally.
For a direct (if partial) answer to your question, I would refer you to the above post about the geographic centrality of Palestine at the time of Christ.
However, I would challenge the basis of your question. The underlying assumption is that God's goal would necessarily be efficiency. The reality is that we do not always know why God acts as He does; He is rather more intelligent than we are. I also realize that this somewhat begs the question (countering an argument against the existence of God with an argument about the nature of the very God whose existence is in dispute), but there is enough convincing evidence available that God -does- exist, and exists in the Christian understanding, that I did not feel the need to attempt such proof here. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this question, feel free to contact me.
In terms of the particular discussion at hand, my arguments against abortion are largely of the secular/scientific variety. I am capable of arguing the point from my understanding of Scripture and Christian theology, but arguments from science and general philosophy are more than sufficient, and are capable of reaching a wider audience.
As I see it, the question of abortion boils down to one question: what, exactly, is it that a pregnant woman carries in her womb? If anyone can convince me that she carries a "lump of tissue", a "potential life", or anything -other- than an unborn human child, then my response will be to completely change my position on abortion and endorse the practice under any conditions.
The problem is, I am thoroughly convinced that a pregnant woman carries an unborn human child in her womb, and that our laws ought to protect that life just as if it were a three-year-old child. At the moment a sperm and egg meet, a genetically unique entity is formed. It is genetically distinct from both the father and mother, and its DNA will remain unchanged its whole life. This is the only "critical point" in the development of a baby where a reasonable case can be made that before the event, it is not a human life, and after the event, it is. Other attempts to recognize a "critical point" all fail.
Birth is simply a change of location; nothing happens to the baby that justifies a change of status. Viability changes as our science advances; there was a time when a baby born 6 weeks premature had little or no chance at life, but now survival of such a premature baby is commonplace. Does this mean that such a baby was not a human being worthy of protection 70 years ago, but is now? The fundamental nature of such a baby has not changed; only our technology has changed.
Anyway I don't want to write a book here, but my basic argument against abortion is this:
An unborn baby is a human being with the same fundamental rights as any other human being, including the right to life. As such, our laws ought to protect that baby just they do after birth. Intentionally killing that baby is murder, just as surely as smothering it with a pillow after birth is murder.