One piece of advice that is frequently repeated to people who are bashful or afraid of approaching members of the opposite sex is "be confident" or "just don't care."

The idea seems sound. If you go into an interaction with no expectations for the outcome, then you will not be nervous about whether you fail or succeed.

In practice, it seems rather difficult to apply this advice, though. One possible way, I suppose would be cognitive behavioural therapy. (That's a $10 phrase that basically means consciously arguing down your irrational fears.) Aside from sitting at the bar and giving oneself a formal, therapeutic pep talk, does anybody have any practical advice for boosting confidence or "not caring?"

Maybe you don't. I hear that if you take the stud out, the hole will whistle when you sneeze. (I'm still trying to decide whether that is a feature or a bug.)

You could do what my sister did. She waited until they'd put the last tuition cheque in the mail and the following week, she went and got a tattoo.

And since I had graduated a year before she had, I felt inspired, so I went out and got one, myself. (Wow, that's more than a year ago that I got mine!)

I guess what I'm saying is: be patient if you're afraid of the repercussions. There will come a point when you're really and truly an adult, who loves and respects her parents, but who is also 100% responsible for herself. That would be the time to go and get your nose pierced.

Golly... I didn't realize that people considered it poor sense or poor manners to IM somebody. I know that I've traditionally tried to use IM's to sound out the waters before writing a full email -- just to see if there's any interest there.

Understand that from my vantage point, I've seen women complain about men whose emails don't contain enough content; but then I spend half an hour putting something thoughtful together and I never get a response to that either.

I am not, of course, saying that every woman is like that, but my median experience discourages an over-investment of effort in an introductory email.

To answer the original question, it's hard to say. I'd rather know for certain that somebody doesn't want to talk to me, but I'd REALLY prefer to have them dash off a few sentences letting me know that. "I'm sorry, but I prefer not to chat live with somebody before I've exchanged emails with them" is a lot kinder than "Ms. Smith has chosen not to chat with you."

I took a baby step toward getting out more on Friday. A friend of mine, from work, invited me to go out dancing at one of the local hot spots. I am normally very self-conscious about dancing. I think that I look like a dweeb and I have traditionally not enjoyed dancing alone.

On Friday, however, I tried a new technique and I found that I was able to enjoy the evening a lot. I danced for ME. I shut my eyes and pretended that I was listening to my iPod in my living room. I only ended up dancing with one girl (who teased me about being a bad dancer) and I think that people laughed at me during "Sweet Home Alabama" but I had set my mind that I wouldn't care.

All in all, I wasn't very sociable, but I was OUT THERE. For me (and probably for some other people around here) that could be an important step.

Speaking loosely, Jews hold that Christians and Muslims have falsely seen the fulfillment of the covenant and that neither Jesus nor Muhammad represents the continuation of God's will.

Christians hold that both Jews and Muslims, who both claim to worship the God of the Hebrews, have failed to bear witness to the fulfillment of his covenant.

As a Christian, I can testify that I hold the teachings of Jesus, as presented in the Bible to be true and the teachings of Muhammad, as presented in the Quran to be false. I hold these notions to be true on the basis of faith.

When Muslims testify that Christians and Jews have misinterpreted or corrupted the meaning of God's word, is that also, then, a matter of faith? For what reason do Muslims hold that the Quran is the completion of God's word? For what reason do they reject the New Testament as the completion of the Old Testament?

I can imagine several directions from which you might arrive at the conclusion that God is not genuinely loving. One common objection that is raised is that if God loves us so much, why doesn't he just let us into Heaven without all of the effort and mystery?

You object that God is obsessed with sin, but I don't think you have quite the right idea here. Sin is, by definition, a rejection of God and, by extension, his goodwill toward us. A fundamental component of our place in God's creation, however, is our freedom of choice. Rejecting God is one such choice. God does not deny us entry to Heaven or force Hell upon us. He merely respects our choice: Accept God or reject God. If somebody has rejected God, why would they want to dwell with Him for eternity? It is my opinion/interpretation that all those who make that choice will eventually realize that eternal separation from God is not as good as they had hoped. That, to me, is the torment of hell.

Eljay's explanation of the necessity of the crucifixion is very good. I would like to take a moment to address two of the other points that have been raised.

Regarding the sinfulness of man, it is our nature to transgress against God because we are blinded and corrupted by sin. It is an unwelcome houseguest in our hearts and in the world. Adam and Eve are responsible for inviting sin into the world. Its token presence from the beginning was necessary so that it was a valid choice. (If the opportunity to sin was not present, then the decision not to sin would have been meaningless. Man's "decision" to live in perfect harmony would have been as impressive as a slot car "deciding" to stay on the track.) In theory, we are capable of choosing not to sin, but like Adam and Eve, we continuously reaffirm the invitation of sin. As Eljay noted, in God's perception, the degree of our sin is absolute.

Regarding the sinlessness of Jesus, as Spidercmb noted, the Biblical flood was an exercise of God's judgment. It does not violate the 6th commandment because that commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder." There is a clear demarcation throughout the Old Testament law between murder, war, and corporal punishment. God's judgment of man based on man's failure to keep God's law is just.

Despite my previous assertion that I would not resubscribe to eHarmony, I DO think that it is the best online dating service I've encountered online so far. I think that the quality of the service has dropped since I last used it, but it has many features that I wish could be implemented at other sites.

The thing that I like most is the focus on useful communication. I've found that it's easy to say too much or too little when you have nothing but a profile and an "email this user" button with which to work. eHarmony's step-by-step mechanism of increasing the intensity of communication makes it a very comfortable process. Unfortunately, when it isn't all part of the system, trying to get somebody to answer five multiple choice questions to break the ice doesn't feel very personal. On the other hand trying to catch somebody's interest with a short essay is hit or miss too.

eHarmony is neither forgetting nor ignoring homosexual singles. I have every reason to believe that the decision to exclude them from the service is deliberate and conscientious. Dr. Warren is an evangelical Christian. It would be inconsistent with his moral outlook if he promoted or abetted homosexual relationships. It may not be the most economically sound decision, but I commend his commitment to his principles.

I've had mixed results with eHarmony.

I met my ex through it and while that relationship turned sour, I was generally satisfied with the service. I had a comfortable number of matches, a good variety (ie: it didn't look like all of my matches were compatible with me for the exact same reasons) and a satisfying amount of communication going on. That was about two or two and a half years ago.

When I decided that I wanted to get back into the dating game again recently, I decided to resubscribe to eHarmony. My results this time around have been considerably worse. I have had plenty of matches, but there's not as much variety. I have also had very little communication. eHarmony lets people create a profile without paying. I have a feeling that the 7 stale matches I have that haven't responded to my initial request for communication fall into that category. It may have been a good dating service at one time, but I don't think I will renew my subscription when it runs out.

Raineegirl, it IS sort of like that, only backed up by a benefit analysis to prove to myself that it's actually worthwhile to try, try again.

The 0's never exceed 5, but after every failure, it becomes a little less terrible. So after one failure, maybe it'll be 0.1. If the trend continues, then after 50 failures, I'll be indifferent to whether or not somebody laughs at me or I make a fool of myself.

Also, remember, acting and failing is balanced by acting and succeeding, which carries a high utility value. Assuming that the probability of either occurrence is 50%, then the expectation value of acting (which includes both the possibilities of failure and success) is 5.

As for my perception of a dancing failure, it IS somewhat subjective, but I'm pretty sure that if I had went rigid with a panic attack out on the dance floor, that would constitute a failure by any measure.

Lately, I have been trying to get a rational grip on my tendency to be risk averse. One of the therapeutic techniques of which I am aware is called Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy. The gist of this technique is to examine one's assumptions with regards to irrational behaviour, identify incorrect assumptions, and logically argue with oneself to correct one's way of thinking.

I conducted a thought experiment this morning to help me get a better understanding of some of my irrational behaviours. Specifically, I went to a club last night and I didn't dance at all because I became anxious about the possibility of failure. This is a negative feedback loop because the more anxious I become about failing, the greater the real probability of failure is. (Failure in this instance doesn't just mean getting rejected. It includes the possibility of being accepted and then embarrassing myself.)

I drew up a grid with the four possibilities on it. I could either act or not act and I could either fail or succeed. On a scale of 10, if I were not to act, my utility would be 5. If I act and fail, my utility would be 0 and if I act and succeed, my utility would be 10. In the short term, either acting or not acting seems like rational behaviour. On any given night, the expectation value of both options is 5.

The insight that I had this morning, however, was that the long-term expectation favours acting. Why? Because each time I act and fail, the utility of acting and failing increases slightly. This creates a positive feedback loop around action. Even though any individual experience might make me want to curl up and cry, the average expectation value of acting will slowly ascend and given enough time, there will even come a point where I derive more utility from acting and failing than I do from not acting.

I don't think that there would be a problem in you getting back together with her. You have expressed a concern, however, that you may not be able to trust her and rightly so. If she can not explain what prompted her to break up with you, then there are two matters that you need to address with her if you hope to maintain the long term potential of the relationship.

1. She does not know her own heart. I can say from painful experience that before somebody can be honest with their partner, they need to be honest with themselves. She broke up with you because she "felt like it." To me, that sounds ridiculous. Feelings are not without cause. She needs to think carefully about the situation so that she can figure out just what sort of feeling it was and what may have caused it. Was she feeling mistrustful, insulted, bored?

2. She acted hastily on an emotional cue. Some people are more prone to this than others, but you may need to communicate to her how her actions made YOU feel. It is one of my firmest opinions that love is a thoughtful decision that one makes with the wellbeing of one's partner in mind. Her actions were neither thoughtful nor made with your wellbeing in mind. A lasting, healthy relationship involves effort, discipline, and compromise. Neither partner can do things just because they feel like it.

If it was not apparent previously, I wish to disclaim that I AM sort of a weirdo. Lex Fonteyne mentioned the "inertia of social convention" which is definitely a focal point in my thoughts about this topic. Although I am not exactly a nonconformist, I try to avoid conformance-by-habit.

So yes, I understand that if I try to strike up a conversation about Machiavelli's "The Prince" with a complete stranger, most people would not respond favourably. What I fail to understand is why social convention discourages more academic topics in the first place. I don't see anything about philosophy or literature (for example) that makes them intrinsically more awkward than any other topic, yet I have a notion that approaching somebody and asking, "Heh, have you read anything interesting lately?" would generate a less favourable response than, "Heh, did you see the Red Sox trounce the Tribe last night?"

Incidentally, I want to clarify that I am not disputing the fact that academic topics do not make good smalltalk. I am trying to gain a deeper understanding of WHY one topic is preferred over another.

One likely explanation is that most effective smalltalk topics are those with which the greatest number of people are conversant. This is sensible, but I don't think that smalltalk is wholly so utilitarian. My experience with smalltalk is that it really is a tool for the enforcement of conformity.

If I try to strike up a conversation about "The Prince," for example, the person to whom I'm speaking might tell me that they've never read it. Fair enough, we talk about something else or part ways. Note that nothing in my response to this situation suggests that I have a lower opinion of the other person for not having read "The Prince." On the flip side, my inability to discuss more traditional smalltalk topics may make me seem like a nut case, a weirdo, a freak, or an embarrassment (all terms that have been used in the course of this discussion.)

I'm happy that I don't have to worry too hard about money. I have a good job and I'm responsible. I sort of expect the same in my mate. My mate's earning potential isn't the most important thing, but it is definitely something that factors into the way I look at women. I don't want a sugar mama, but I certainly don't want to be somebody else's sugar daddy, either. It helps that I would prefer a college-educated career woman for reasons entirely unrelated to money.

For me, the matter comes down to two important life goals of mine. I want my family and me to live a comfortable life. Money does not buy happiness, but it DOES facilitate comfort.

I would also like to tell my kids when they're 18 that they can go to any school that they want and the money will be there for them. That's going to be a modest challenge even with two substantial incomes. My ideal mate will share this goal. (I found it very upsetting when one of my ex-girlfriends expressed the opinion that if one of her kids couldn't go to college because of money issues, she wouldn't lose any sleep over it.)

Starting a conversation in a grocery store is just the sort of thing that I think I would do. The context provides relevance to the discussion.

At the bar or on the bus, though, conversation with a stranger does not seem like an organic part of the context. Thus, the subtext of the message ("I am interested in you.") drowns out the text of the message ("Do you think that the Indians can beat the Rockies?")

When conversation is integral to the situation, it comes quite naturally to me. I thrive when the topic of discussion is relevant and interesting to both parties. When I'm trying to mask my interest with a thin veneer of conversation, I feel like I'm full of ****. It feels dishonest to pretend that I want to talk about the weather.

BayAreaGal, I'm talking about real life chit-chat.

KidAtHeart70 (and LexFonteyne and KLC), that makes somewhat more sense to me. It rings true, but I really hope that's not the case. If it is, I'm screwed. How am I supposed to have positive body language when I'm talking about a subject that bores me (and therefore makes me feel anxious about feeling boring?)

Sincereman51, I suppose if I were really confident about myself, which I'm not, I could just as easily turn your question around and ask why people are so shallow and ignorant that they don't want to talk about the theory of relativity.

I guess I don't understand how making smalltalk helps somebody to decide whether or not they'd like to have a deeper conversation with me. The array of "safe" smalltalk subjects doesn't even make ME want to talk to me. It's as engaging as pocket lint. How does being boring help to impress anybody?