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.
That was SO well put!
It breaks my heart that I know two people (very well) that have had abortions. Christians who chose what seemed like the easy way out of a bad situation at the time. They didn't want to face the music so they made their offspring face murder.
I have never been able to get a pro-babykiller to explain to me what they see as the difference between killing it 3 months before birth and 3 months after birth. They have mentioned dependence - but that is garbage. Welfare recipients are dependent... uuhhhmmm what gives? If I had stopped feeding my kids without providing them an exit from my care - they would have died too - I just do not understand this ridiculous choice thing. Having sex is a choice. I will defend with everything in me, a man or a womans right to choose the latter. But allowing someone to kill someone else afterward - just no.
AS far as god's existence, I am sure that most people agree that God exists. As far as as sending ALL his messengers to a small unpopulated area in the Middle East, that appears to be inefficient way of doing things, and I expect an eloquent answer from you at your convenience.
Back to the abortion issue; you stated 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.I disagree on that premise. First an unborn child is not equal to a three years old child. The unborn child is not viable unless connected to the mother's umbilical cord for nourishment. The dilema of a young girl killing her unborn child is a big tauma, and most abortions would never take place if the women are given good advices to give their child to adoptions. However, to give you some resemblance of such dilemma, say you have a family pet like a dog or a cat, and it fell sick, and the vet says it would cost ten thousand dollars (which for this argument you don't have) to fix that ailment. Most people will chose that the vet would put their pet to "sleep", or KILL it! That choice is a very sad choice, and will haunt you for years, but you must make it.
Another example of how decisions can be very difficult is if you and a fellow hikers in the desert would run out of water, and your partner is unable to go on, and you can either stay with your partner and die, or leave your partner and run as fast as you can to rescue yourself first, and perhaps get your partner some help. These are all =very unpleasant life and death decisions that we all hope to never come across.
To this end, I am waiting for your answer to my messengers question. If any one would to clear that, it got to be you.