MuttleyLaff:
SMH. Facepalm. SMH
I have never read nor come across a discombobulated post such as this before
I expect you too, do a runner soon after questions are put to you, just like Ronpet777 earlier did, running away retreating with tail between legs

I doubt you objectively read OPs post
SMH. The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.
The thing about the truth is, not a lot of people can handle it

mudiana:
Hmmmmm! If masturbation mess up ur sex life as a guy ehn! You won't even bother bringing God inside the matter, you will be thinking of ur penis

bovo:
You obviously haven't spent much time with your bible. Lev 15:16, 1 Cor 6:12. Thank me later.

mcmurphy132:
... Nairaland Christian terrorist spotted

Bible > Luke > Chapter 22 > Verse 36
◄ Luke 22:36
New International Version
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Amberon11:
Those of us who have read the Quran know that we cannot be fooled by Altaquiyya (Islamic lying). Terrorism is very much prescribed for Muslims and Mohammed the founder of Islam spread Islam through beheading and killing of non-muslims.

lurther:
Was london sleeping all this while?

Muslims have automatically taking over London with the millions of population there. They even have a muslim mayor to prove that their numerical number is huge. No wonder London have been a hotbed of terrorism in recent times.

The British Monarchy should be alert before they are overthrown? . Queen Elizabeth should know here history better.

Muslim always conquer territories with time.They are building up in London and other cities in Britain.

bezimo:
If you watched these nollywood vintage movies in the 90s..as in renting video cassette movie for N20 from video shop to go and watch at home on your video casette player..and you are not married..You need serious devine attention.lol

OLAADEGBU:


The Lord who saved Pastor Kumuyi will save Richard Dawkins in Jesus' name.

darkchild64:
Masturbation is not wrong, however if u are a Christian or Muslim of course ur religion says it is,so the choice is urz,however for those who don't care about what religion has to say like I earlier said,masturbation is not wrong,if u re into it u just have to understand certain things which I may not start to talk about right now but just know that it can very easily become additive and may cause u some troubles,but trust me masturbation is not even an issue worth the attention we give it

chikachuks1:
Google has announced its intention to temporarily disable all responses to questions about religious figures after coming under serious criticism this week for lack of proper programming of its smart audio technology, Google Home. This technology failed to answer questions about Jesus but yet, it answered questions about muhammad buddha and satan. This led to a serious provocation in the christian community and hence tough criticism for the technology.

After being accused of having an “agenda” and bias against Jesus and Christianity, Google released a statement on Twitter on Friday saying it was temporarily disabling all responses to questions about religious figures.

“[Google Assistant] might not reply in cases where web content is more vulnerable to vandalism and spam,” a spokesperson for Google said. “If our systems detect such circumstances, the Assistant might not reply. If similar vulnerabilities were detected for other questions — including those about other religious leaders — the Assistant also wouldn’t respond. We’re exploring different solutions and temporarily disabling these responses for religious figures on the Assistant.”

Television producer, author and speaker David Sams, who helped bring international attention to Google’s perceived bias against Christianity, posted a Facebook Live video showing Google Home’s updated responses to various religious figures.

“Religion can be complicated and I’m still learning,” Google Home responded to each of the religious names Sams asked about.

Sams celebrated Google’s response as a “victory” because he believes Jesus has now been given equal treatment to other religious figures. “It’s better to be on par, than you don’t know who Jesus is,” he said.

The controversy began because the device can play your music, call your friends, and answer almost any question that can be found on the internet. However, when asked who was Jesus, Jesus Christ or God the smart speaker previously said it did not know the answer.

“Sorry, I’m not sure how to help” or “My apologies I don’t understand,” Google Home responded before the recent programming update.

This technology was not taken lightly because it tried to treat other religions above christianity and also treated other religious heads above Jesus.
http://www.christianityupdate.com/blog/google-home-disables-answers-buddha-muhammad-response-jesus-christ-controversy/

OLAADEGBU:
President Trump Announces Winners of 'Fake News' Awards – (FULL LIST)
January 17, 2018

The following is a publication from the GOP:

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media's coverage of President Trump is negative.

Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards:

1. The New York Times' Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President Trump's historic, landslide victory that the economy would never recover.

2. ABC News' Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral with false report.

3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President's massive sold-out rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the feeding.

7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci's meeting with a Russian, but retracted it due to a "significant breakdown in process."

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump's hand.

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump's claim that he was told he is not under investigation.

10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the Trump administration had hidden a climate report.

11. And last, but not least: "RUSSIA COLLUSION!" Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!

While the media spent 90% of the time focused on negative coverage or fake news, the President has been getting results:

1. The economy has created nearly 2 million jobs and gained over $8 trillion in wealth since the President's inauguration.⁴

2. African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying the lowest unemployment rate in recorded history.³

3. The President signed historic tax cuts and relief for hardworking Americans not seen since President Reagan.

4. President Trump's plan to cut regulations has exceeded "2 out for every 1 in" mandate, issuing 22 deregulatory actions for every one new regulatory action.

5. The President has unleashed an American energy boom by ending Obama-era regulations, approving the Keystone pipeline, auctioning off millions of new acres for energy exploration, and opening up ANWR.

6. ISIS is in retreat, having been crushed in Iraq and Syria.³

7. President Trump followed through on his promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and instructed the State Department to begin to relocate the Embassy.

8. With President Trump's encouragement, more member nations are paying their fair share for the common defense in the NATO alliance.

9. Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the VA to fire failing employees and establishes safeguards to protect whistleblowers.

10. President Trump kept his promise and appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://breaking911.com/breaking-president-trump-announces-winners-fake-news-awards-full-list/?onesignal_site_push_notification

FreshGreen:
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
Now, what is difference between these two situations if you know it? In the early Christianity, believers were persecuted for preaching the gospel, they were punished for sharing gospel with others because the law of the land then forbidden it. And now in many countries, especially “Christian” countries, it’s forbidden to preach gospel or share gospel with people at workplace or in public schools, etc. It’s the same tactics of the devil to silent or block the spreading of the gospel, there is no different between the Roman emperor making laws that forbids preaching gospel and your office or school authority that forbid preaching or sharing gospel.

The devil will always remain devil through generations, and that is not a problem, but the problem here is that why believers do not remain believers throughout generations likewise? The believers of the olden days refused to stop preaching gospel in the face of persecutions, punishments and death when their governments then made anti-gospel laws but today believers are not ready to face persecution or punishment for preaching gospel so they rather remain silent. The worst situation is that if any believer, with his understanding of God’s word and zeal for God’s work, insist to preach the gospel and face the persecution or punishments, the first set of people who will condemn him are some Christians, either those worldly Christians or lukewarm Christians; they will say the Christian lacks understanding or wisdom, some will say the person is disobeying the law of the land which Bible commands us to obey.

But the question is, why did early Christians refused to obey the laws that opposed the gospel or the word of God, but Christians of today are ready to obey Government’s law than God’s laws? The answer is simple! It’s because the Christians of today are earthly focused and minded, but the early Christians were heavenly focused and cared less of things of this world. The Christians of today see prosperity as the sign of God’s approval but the early Christians saw persecutions as the sign of God’s approval.

Persecutions gave the early Christians joy, but the only thing that gives joy and testimony among Christians today is prosperity. “So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Acts 5:41.

This is the reason Christianity is not spreading as before in societies, because the devil is using government’s law, rules and regulations to silent Christians from preaching gospel, and many Christians are cooperating with the devil. When the devil used those in authority to pass laws that disallowed Christians from preaching gospel in the Bible, “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. But to the Christians of today, who are we obeying, God or government?

More Than The Government
I have got to know that many Christians are shying away from preaching gospel not mostly because of government laws but because of personal gain. Pastors are afraid to preach the truth in his church because he doesn’t want members to walk away, also many Christians are afraid of preaching to their customers, clients, in their businesses, offices, schools because they don’t want them to walk away, they don’t want people to see them as uncivilized fellow. You know it’s more civilized today to talk about sport than to talk about Christ. Christians of today are more mindful of their jobs, business or career than preaching gospel to offend people. I listen to some American Christian music, singing a whole song without mentioning the name of Jesus, because they want to appeal to everyone. I also heard of some popular preachers who write Christian books without mentioning the name of Jesus Christ in the whole books, all because they want to sell to everyone.

The apostles lost everything for the gospel, laid down their lives for the sake of gospel, but our preachers today are laying treasures for themselves on earth in the name of gospel, they are using gospel to gain the world and their members – lukewarm and worldly Christians - are also following their steps. Come to think of it, are you going to the same heaven the early Christian went to? When your life is opposite the lifestyle of the early Christians, it means you are going opposite where the early Christians went to.

In this end time, is there anything more urgently important and rewarding than preaching gospel and evangelism? Is there anything more important to spend money on than evangelism? Will you allow yourself to be consumed with the care of this world until you find yourself at the other side of the river in eternity or until rapture take place?

Do not be among the mixed multitude that will miss rapture before they realize they have missed the right way to heaven long ago.

Repent, rededicate your life to Jesus and renew your commitment to Him. He is waiting for you right now!

Please click on this link and read on how to be genuinely saved and start new life in Jesus and pray as directed http://www.facebook.com/notes/revelation-of-truth-evangelical-ministries-rtem/how-can-i-be-saved/270674586372252
You can read more messages that will help your Christian life and ministry on our website rtemoutreach.org

antiFapping:
I remember when I couldn't go half-days without wanking, I used to do it EVERYDAY, I'm not exaggerating. But now I do it once or twice in a month. Don't be surprised, I haven't stopped totally, I'm still on the path of recovery, and I'm being honest with it. That's the first step to recovery... HONESTY,
you have to be honest with yourself, you have to admit that you have a problem, cos the problem a lot of people have is that they don't admit that they have a problem

AccessME:
Masturbation is Sore, Evil and Barbaric

It made me spend an extra year in School!

I still regret what masturbation did to me even till date

preciousuweh:
One of the question people most especially the women are asking in the Christendom today is:
IS IT RIGHT OR WRONG FOR WOMEN TO PUT ON TROUSERS.
The answer to the above question has always been two sided. Two sided in the sense that some set of people opposes it, i.e claims/say that it is wrong for women to put it on. And if asked why they say so, they will simply tell you that the bible kicks against it, and the passage they always quote or dish out is Deuteronomy 22:5.
While the other set of people proposes it, i.e claim/say that there is nothing wrong with it, and when asked why, they will simply say that there is no way where it is written in the bible that women shouldn't put on trousers.
And the argument continues while the billion dollar question lingers, is it wrong or right for women to put on trousers?
Well the answer to that is what we will be looking at in this article. It's gonna be a long thing, so buckle up.
Before I continue, let's look at what the bible says in Deuteronomy 22:5;

" The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. "

What the above passage is saying is, a woman should not put on any attire that belongs to a man and a man also should not put on any attire that belongs to a woman. That's Awesome. But the question here is;
Is Trouser Only A Male Attire?
Well before I answer that, let's look at the below facts.
1.) The Indian women puts on trouser like attire culturally (i.e as their cultural attire).
2.) The Arab women puts on trouser like attire culturally (i.e as their cultural attire).
3.) The Hausa/Fulani women of the Northern Nigeria puts on trouser like attire culturally (i.e as their cultural attire where the women puts on trouser or trouser like attire sewn with local material or a jean trouser in which a long gown is being worn over).

Also, I will like us to consider the below facts also
1.) In Scotland, their men puts on skirt like attire culturally (i.e as their cultural attire).
2.) The Jewish, Arab, Greek, Roman men puts on gowns or gown like attire culturally (i.e as their cultural attire).
3.) The Efik, Ibibio, Anang and Oron men of the Niger Deltan states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River State tie wrappers culturally (i.e as their cultural attire).

Before we proceed, I will like you (reader) to ponder on the below questions:
1.) Will the Indian, Arab and Hausa/Fulani women be condemn to Hell because they put on trousers or trouser like attire which is their cultural attire?
2.) Will the Scottish, Jewish, Arab, Roman, Greek, Efik, Ibibio, Anang and Oron men be condemn to hell because they put on skirt like attire, gown or gown like attire and tie wrapper which is their respective cultural attires?
If your answer to the above question is yes i.e they will be condemn to hell, that means you are trying to tell me that, the Bible and GOD is against culture. And if that be the case, then what was the need for GOD to separate men into diverse language and culture at the tower of babel if HE was against it?
I will like someone to ponder on that.

Different cultures and their different ways of dressing. And they are cultures that allow men to put on skirt like or gown like attires, and they are also cultures that allow women to put on trouser like attire.
In those cultures that allow men to put on skirt like or gown like attires, their women also dress in like manner but there is always a difference.
In such cultures, the gown like attire or skirt like atttire been worn by the males is always different from the gown like or skirt like attire been worn by the women, for e.g the Jewish men put on gown like attires just like their female counterparts, but the type of gowns be worn, how it is been worn and the manners by which it is been worn is different from that of the female in such a way that some one can be able to different between a male gown and a female gown.
The Efiks also, the way and manner in which a male ties his wrapper is different from the way a female do theirs. Same applicable to cultures that allow women to put on trousers or trouser like attires. The way and manner by which a female puts on trousers and trouser like attires is different from the way the male does theirs in such a way one will be able to differentiate between that of the females and the males.
In essence all I'm trying to say is that trouser is not only a male attire because they are cultures that allows women to put on such.
Another point to show that trouser is not a male attire is if we go back to the garden of Eden after the fall of man when GOD sew clothes for Adam and Eve. HE didn't sew trouser or trouser like attire for Adam, how are you sure? you may ask. Well if HE did that, the early men would have been putting on trousers or trouser like attires but that didn't happen, because the early men put on gown like attire which shows that GOD himself sew a gown like attire for Adam whose pattern he then passed over to his children and eventually the early men but the way and manner in which the male gown was and was been worn was different to that of the females.

So now what the Bible in Deuteronomy 22:5 (which is our opening bible passage) which at first was commanded to the Jews but has now been extended to gentiles also by reason of salvation and grace through our LORD JESUS CHRIST ( and the gentiles are people with diverse cultural backgrounds) is saying is:
Any dressing or attire that has been seen, allowed, noticed, permitted as a man's attire culturally (i.e in a particular culture), a woman shouldn't put it on. Likewise any dressing or attire that has been seen, allowed, noticed, permitted as a woman's attire culturally (i.e in a particular culture), as man shouldn't put it on. Because it is an abomination and sin in the sight of GOD. For e.g if a Scottish male puts on a skirt like attire that is for a female (given the fact that Scottish male put on skirt like atire) then that male has committed a sin and abomination in the sight of GOD. Likewise also if a Jewish woman puts on a gown that is for a man, then that woman has committed a sin and abomination in the sight of GOD. And also if me, as an oron man tie my wrapper the way oron women tie theirs, then I have committed a sin and abomination in the sight of GOD. And also if an oron woman ties her wrapper the way oron men tie theirs, then certainly that woman has committed sin and abomination in the sight of GOD.
But if a male of a particular cultural background puts on any attire (be it skirt, trousers, gowns and wrappers) that is for males, then he hasn't committed any sin or done anything wrong. Likewise if a female of a particular cultural background puts on any attire (be it skirt, trousers, gowns and wrappers) that is for females, then she hasn't committed any sin or done anything wrong. For e.g if a Scottish male puts on a skirt like attire that is for a male (given the fact that Scottish male put on skirt like atire) then that male has not committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD. Likewise also if a Jewish woman puts on a gown that is for a woman, then that woman has not committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD. And also if me, as an oron man tie my wrapper the way oron men tie theirs, then I have not committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD. And also if an oron woman ties her wrapper the way oron women tie theirs, then certainly that woman hasn't committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD.
I know the thought on your mind will be: "But all the above statements and facts are all about or related to the cultural background of the said people. How is that related to the modern way of dressing which involves women putting on trousers?"
That's a nice question up there but before I answer that question, I will like you to ponder on the questions below:
1.) The modern attire we put on today, is it our cultural attire i.e is that the attire been worn and recognized by people of our culture as our cultural attire? Of course our answer to the above question is a capital NO.
2.) Since it's not our cultural attire, then where did it originate from? what culture, cultural background or people did it originate from? because such attires wouldn't just have originated from nowhere or from mars to Earth and be termed "modern attires".
The answer to the above question is that the so called modern attire of today actually originated from the west which includes the US, UK, North American and European countries which means that the so called modern attires of our world today are the cultural attires of the west but due to unknown reasons they became so popular and widespread that they are now term modern attires rather than western attires.
Another question I will like to ask is:
The modern trousers been worn by men today, which culture did it originate from? Of course the answer to that is the westerners. There is no other culture to the best of my knowledge right from time immemorial (the biblical times) that allow men to put on or that recognises the modern trousers (which is been worn by men today) as their cultural attire. The westerners introduced that and today, it is now been regarded as a world wide thing.
If you look at the western culture, the issue of women putting on trousers wasn't part of their culture but they came a time when their culture evolved in such a way women starting putting on trousers i.e trousers designed and made for women were been produced.
You may ask, why must their culture evolve?
Well the answers to that are in the below points:
1.) Life is dynamic. And for something to be dynamic, change must occur. To evolve means to change. Change is constant, it can never be stopped.
2.) Ask yourself this question (This question is targeted at the Africans, most especially Nigerians). The way people of your culture dress currently culturally, is it the same way they were dressing during the pre-colonial era (i.e Before colonisation, before the white men came to Africa, before the white men conquered the African continent.)? The answer to the above question is NO (but if you are uncertain about it, a little research on your part will be useful). So the same way your culture evolve from the what they use to dress then to the way they dress now, that is the same way the western culture evolve to the culture it is today, the culture which allows women to put on trousers.
If you still insist that the western culture for evolving is wrong then that means our respective cultures are also wrong for evolving.
So in essence what I'm saying is that the western culture is a culture that allows both women and men to put on trousers.
But in all this, there are trousers specifically designed for the male folks likewise they are also trousers designed for the female folks and they are trousers designed as unisex i.e they can be worn by both the male and female folks. And also the way and manner by which a woman dresses even if she is putting on trouser is different from the way and manner a man dresses in such a way that whenever someone sees a female or female attire he/she will be able to identify her as a female even from a distance or he/she will also be able to recognize the attire as one pertaining to feminism. Same thing applicable to the male attire or manner of dressing which also enables one to be able to identify a male even from a distance or be able to identify such attire as one pertaining to masculinity.
So if a man puts on trousers designed for a woman e.g leggings (which is a trouser like attire designed for women), then he has committed a sin or an abomination in the sight of GOD according to Deuteronomy 22:5. And also if a woman puts on trousers designed for a man, then she has committed a sin or an abomination in the sight of GOD according to Deuteronomy 22:5. But if a man puts on trousers designed for a man, then he hasn't committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD according to Deuteronomy 22:5. Likewise if a woman puts on trousers designed for a woman e.g leggings (which is a trouser like attire designed for women), then she hasn't committed any sin or abomination in the sight of GOD according to Deuteronomy 22:5.
So if you say that the trouser is only a man's attire and all women that put them on irrespective of cultural background will be condemned to hell, then that means the skirt or skirt like attire, gowns or gown like attire and the wrappers are all female attires and all men that puts them on will be condemned to hell.
That means the male Jews, Arabs, Romans, Greeks etc will all be condemn to hell for putting on gown or gown like attires which is their culture.
That means the Scottish men will be sent to hell for putting on skirt like attires which is their culture.
That means the men of Efik, Ibibio, Anang and some part of Igbo will be sent to hell for tying wrappers which is their culture.
That also means me and my fellow oron men will be condemn to hell for tying wrappers which is our culture also.
That means JESUS CHRIST should be in hell fire or is already in hell fire since HE Himself wore gown like attires which was the culture of the Jews.
That also means the apostles and the prophets should be in hell fire since they themself wore gown like attires which was the culture of the Jews.
That generally means GOD will condemn people of an entire cultural background to hell simply because they dressed culturally or chooses to dress culturally.
WHAT AN IDEOLOGY!!!!!
Of course the answer to the above statements is a capital NO.
That is why you can't go and tell a western woman that because she is putting on trousers (which is her cultural attire), she will go to hell. She will look at a you like someone that has problem upstairs.
An also imagine a white man coming to tell me that because i'm tying wrapper as an oron man (which is my cultural attire), I will go to hell. I will look at that white man like someone that has brain tumour.

I wonder why some of our churches, people and society label and condemn women that puts on trousers (which is the culture of a particular set of people whom they copied from) to hell why they label and approve those that puts on modern/western skirt(s) or gown(s) (which is also the culture of the same particular set of people whom they are copying from) as those that will be save from the condemnation of hell. Why do they approve a part of the culture of a particular set of people in terms of their dressing and condemn to hell and criticize another part of the culture of that same particular set of people in terms of their dressing also i.e why do they approve the wearing of modern/western skirts and gowns by women and condemn/criticize the wearing of trousers by women ( given the fact that both are the cultural attires of the same set of people from a particular cultural background).
Is That Not Hypocrisy And Mediocrity?

That is why I say as a result of the above facts that putting on of trousers by women is not wrong neither is it a sin or neither does it contradict with Deuteronomy 22:5 because it's the cultural attire of the westerners whom we have also copied from because people tend to copy other people's culture.

So instead of condemning putting on of trousers by women, we (the Christians) should be preaching, advocating and promoting decent, modest and godly dressing irrespective of what one is putting on be it a skirt, gown, wrapper or trouser.
We should also be preaching against cross dressing i.e a man putting on a female attire and a female putting on a male attire.
Our focus shouldn't be on what we dress in or put on but how we dress.

Previously, i was also of the opinion that wearing of trousers by women was wrong and a sin and that they will be condemn to hell Fire until the day I decided to ask questions, research deeply into the bible and examined between diverse cultures and their dressings, dug out the above point and facts I've shared with you, that was when I realized that women putting on trousers is not wrong neither is it a sin.
Although it took me days to come to this conclusion.

NOTE: I'm not condemning or against those churches that are against wearing of trousers by women because every church has their do's and donts which I call church doctrines and they have their reasons why they say or choose to do so.
So if you are woman and your church is against women putting on trousers,then avoid putting it on, do not rebel but if your church allows it then put it on but if your church do not allow putting it on (trousers) to church but permits it outside the church i.e at home, then do likewise, do not rebel.
All I'm trying to say is that putting on trousers by women is not wrong neither is it a sin.
So we should stop labeling women putting on trousers as candidates of Hell Fire.

THANK YOU, NAMASTEY.

#XAVIER

Cc seun, lalasticlala.

Nigeriadondie:
Tongues speaking was a gift of d holy spirit which enabled early christians back then to preach in a language(tongue) other than their own.

Before the birth of christianity, God had a covenant relationship with man but that was to change as the old Law was to be replaced with the new law enacted by d blood of Jesus and henwas no longer dealing with humans on d basis of the old law but thru d newly formed christian congregation after Christ's death and ressurection. To convince many that the congregation had His backing, he uses gifts of d spirit such as tongues- 1 Corinthians 14:22.

The gift of speaking served another purpose. During the time of Jesus there was no printing and broadcasting to relay messages to a mass audience as we ve now. Also, there was d issue of language barrier which wud hamper d spread of d gospel of God's will and purpose. To overcome these challenges, tongues speaking filled that need.

Please open ur Bible to read Acts 2:1-11 but with emphasis on verses 6-11 where you wud observe that the tongues spoken where in d real sense of it real languages that were understood by other people who spoke the language not some senseless and meaningless words spoken by ALL tongues speaking pentecostal churches. That way, people cud hear the message of God in their own native language. If u read Acts2:41 u would see that d result of tongues speaking was the 3,000 converts who would now carry witj them to whereever they went the message of goodnews or gospel fulfilling what Christ said in Acts1:8 and what Paul said in Colossians 1:23.

Again, lets examine tongue speaking in the time of early christians and the ones of our time which for me is mere rambling of meaningless words which is tantamount to noise which I recall in my High school class is an unpleasant noise.
Read 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 and 27-31 with emphasis on verse 30.
Read also 1 Corinthians 14:5-33,40 but lay emphasis on 5,11,12,13,19,26-28,31,33,40.
You would realise that when tongues are spoken then it must be interpreted. If no interpretation the tongue speaker has achieved nothing.
Also in verse 31, people cant speak in tongues simultaneously (at the same time) it would make d place rowdy/noisy/disorderly/chaotic as the gathering of barbarians. And the God true christians worship is a God or order as verse 33 shows and so christians must worship God in an orderly manner as verse 40 shows. Not the simultaneous noise making of all in the pentecostal churches we see today, people rambling making noise uttering words they nor their listeners understand and as such cannot interpret what the blabbed which is required.

Now in our time, we ve a well developed printing and broadcasting technology that has overcome the language barrier. The spread of d goodnews is no longer impeded by language barrier as the Bible is now printed in all the living languages spoken today. We even have d Braille for the blind and some bibles have sign language for d deaf. Beinh an ardent admirer of Jehovah's Witnesses the have their publications in about 800 languanges and have a mobile application called "JW LIBRARY" in about 800 languages. If u doubt me u can download it and u wud be amazed at its unique features. Even their website www.jw.org is in many languages as well so making tongues speaking obsolete.
Also , they ve many missionaries who ve taken up the challenge of leaening bew languages so they could reach people who speak that language with d gospel.

As Paul said in 1Corinthians 13:1-13, the gifts of speaking in tongues and other gifts of d holy spirit would pass away with time. This is because as d christian congregation was still in its baby or infant stage, extraordinary gifts of the spirit was needed to convince people of God's approval of the christian congregation but as time went by and it grew beyond the babe stage, the traits of babes has to be put way and as such these gifts are no longer required. They ve outlived their purpose.

Hence, we should not be arried away with all these fake pentecostal churches. Look at what d Bible says Matthew 7:21-23, 2Thessolonians 2:8-10