The Nature Of Reality Series By Leslie Cross

[The Leslie Cross Domain](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/)

A New Cosmology, and a few other subjects
[ ](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/)
Search

Main menu

[Skip to primary content](#content)
[Skip to secondary content](#secondary)
[Home](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/)[Shopping Cart](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=4)[Checkout](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=5)[The Nature of Reality, A Debate on Time](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=39)[The Nature of Reality, God and Time, Where the Church is Wrong](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=41)[The Nature of Reality, The Day God Changed](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=36)[The Nature of Reality, The Universe, Where Everyone Went Wrong](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=32)



Pitch Page


Leslie Cross is a certified genius. Well, actually, I am the genius and Leslie Cross is my nome de plume, but what the heck. I simply don’t want the headaches from the trouble I am about to stir up, and trouble it is, trouble for your church, your pastors, your university, your friends, I will show you what is wrong about what you have been taught and how to think correctly about the universe we all live in. I have, in the past been kicked out, ostracised, and criticized by family, friends, universities, churches, social groups, you name it, they have excluded me because if I am correct their most fundamental understanding of the universe would overthrow their conceptions of the world and the way things work.

You too will question me ([here if you need to](http://lesliecross.­info/­wordpress/­)), then hate me, then realize I am right, and then try to make your friends understand the truth. It is easier just to have them read the books, trust me, I am an expert. I am used to controversy and here, I lay out the most controversial thoughts in a series of eBooks in my Nature of Reality series. Just because you have a better understanding of the universe, one that is actually internally consistent, you don’t want other saying you are few bricks short of a load or, few cards shy of a full deck, or perhaps, few cards short of a deck, or maybe you are all crown and no filling, all booster no payload! I deliver the payload.

I guarantee it is outside the box. In fact, it is its own box. no one else has my box, most don’t even know my box exists! But, if you do not understand these particular things about reality, the cosmos, the world in which you live, then you will never be able to understand your beliefs or why God is good, and he is not bad, nor is he the twisted God of Calvin or Arminius or for that matter Augustine or Plato. He really is good and he really is there for you. He is more real than the classic theologies of Calvin and Arminius teach. Find out how and why.

I simply challenge everyone from your professor to your priest, from your mama to Plato and just about everyone else who has every lived. They are:

1)      The Universe, the first in the Nature of Reality Series, I explain the basis for a new cosmology and where all other cosmologies were wrong in some aspect and why this cosmology answers all of the evidence discovered to date, but tie this back to the Jewish prophet Isaiah. I take on Einstein and Plato, your pastor and your professors in this provocative book. The challenge to you is, can you maintain your ideas without becoming a mystic, that is, claiming some kind of special knowledge? Good luck. Do you realize “modern science” depends on a theory overthrown by Luis Pasteur? You remember the germ theory. But no, this is not a technical book, you can understand it. You might not like it but you can understand it. (ISBN: 978-1-937932-00-8)

[Click Here to Purchase for only $10](http://1.aimpubs.pay.ClickBank.net)

2)      A Debate on Time, the second in the series explains what time is and asks, is God really “outside of time” and exactly what does this mean? What would be the implications? I claim that the only things that are “outside of time” are things that do not exist. Does God exist? If so, then he is in the same dimensions we all exist in, including the dimension we call “time.” Just to assuage your fears, I believe the Bible is inerrant, and, for brevity, look up the classical definition of that. (ISBN 978-1-937932-01-5)

[Click Here to Purchase for only $10](http://2.aimpubs.pay.ClickBank.net)

3)      Heresy! Will be the cry of millions when they read this the third book, The Day God Changed as I continue the Nature of Reality Series by directly challenging the 2500 year old idea that nothing about God changes with the proposition that the Christian God of the Bible not only changes, but the greatest change possible in the Judeo-Christian Bible happened to that God they teach cannot change at all. We can’t both be right, but I am outnumbered tens of millions to one. However, truth does not care how many believe it, it is true even if no one believes it. That is the nature of truth, it is objective. (ISBN 978-1-937932-02-2)

[Click Here to Purchase for only $10](http://3.aimpubs.pay.ClickBank.net)

4)      God and Time, Where the Church is Wrong puts the final nail in Plato’s coffin when I show the Christian church, in general, has been wrong for more that seventeen hundred years about the relationship of the God of the Bible and Time, conflating and contaminating the Judeo-Christian belief with Greco-Roman philosophy (this is an error called syncretism). (ISBN 978-1-937932-03-9)

[Click Here to Purchase for only $10](http://4.aimpubs.pay.ClickBank.net)

The recurring mystical debate about the nature of time is laid to rest with a common sense approach to the Nature of Reality in Leslie Cross’ second book. Einstein was wrong, your pastor or priest or Rabbi is wrong, and your professors have been wrong.

In 2001 Leslie debated with a group of friends of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints and shows what the misconceptions of reality are and reinforces the new cosmology laid out in Leslie’s first book “The Universe” from a philosophic, scientific, and religious viewpoint to come to a unified and rational understanding that is remarkably simple.

Contact the publisher if you have questions [here](mailto:AIMpubs@cox.net)



2 thoughts on “Pitch Page”

[Pedro](http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003405583408) on [March 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=108#comment-12) said:

, we experience peace which persassus understanding.I still think you are stretching these words in Gen 2:9, I don’t think the lexical information we have nor the context warrants this specificity. We begin to stray into philosophical territory, where we divide between optical sight and mental sight. Do we spiritually’ see because we compare what we physically see against some kind of platonic ideal? Is it even possible to only have platonic sight? If you have physical ears only, but you are physically deaf, can you be said to inwardly hear? Do we have to nail down our understanding of Kant before we can say that a tree is beautiful? It smacks of splitting hairs. Clearly, however we apprehend it, believers and unbelievers alike grasp the aesthetic beauty of nature. This aesthetic apprehension speaks almost directly to us of God Romans 1:19-23.

[Reply ↓](/wordpress/?page_id=108&hop=0&replytocom=12#respond)
LeslieCross on [April 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm](http://thelesliecrossdomain.com/wordpress/?page_id=108#comment-24) said:

Thank you for your comment Pedro. You seem to be using a lexical technique to complicate the issue. This is commonly done to justify irrational beliefs. By lexical technique I mean by mixing actual vision, done through the eyes, with rational understanding which you use the metaphor of “mental sight.” Then you complicate it again by using “spiritual vision” as if it was something other than rational thinking.
We need to apply A=A here, so, “mental sight” = “rational understanding.” If it does not mean this, then what does it mean? Irrational thinking? So you think we mistake sight with rational thought? Then again you throw in “spiritual sight” as if it is a third vision, but again, it is a metaphor for “rational understanding” because surely you do not believe that spiritual insight is irrational. If it is irrational, then we all might as well become Hindus who deny rationality all together. Then you layer it again with “inwardly hear.” Is they yet another kind of thinking? I will quote your text above but unwrap this with the work “think” or “thinking” in each case and it reads:
“We begin to stray into philosophical territory, where we divide between thinking and thinking. Do we think because we compare what we physically see against some kind of platonic ideal? Is it even possible to only have thinking? If you have physical ears only, but you are physically deaf, can you be said to (be) thinking?”
I do find over my five decades of learning that people who jumble these terms are doing so to avoid rational understanding especially in theology. And, but the way I am the one throwing Plato out, not incorporating him. I hold nothing to “Platonic ideals” because I believe his concept is completely false at its very root. He produced a spherical universe when Isaiah told us three hundred years easier it is anisotropic, proved only in 2003 with WMAP.
But then you throw yet another kind of understanding in and call it “platonic sight.” How many types of understanding do you think there are and why do you make it so complicated? What are you trying to avoid? Rational thought it the only true knowledge. Even God gives us substantial evidences of his being real and being thee before he asks us to believe what we cannot see, touch, or feel, to evidence things not seen, things we must take by faith without testing being possible. So he proves he is a reliable source of information and power, proving things like raising the dead, and then tells us of heaven and what his plans are for our future, things we must take by faith alone.
And, yes, I do understand Kant and his attempt to explain morals using the categorical imperative, which fails to do so, and his splitting of rational scientific reasoning and unscientific irrational faith, a most devastating division of mental understand, yea, a virtual furcation of the understanding of knowledge. He was ridiculous and nonsensical almost on par with Hume.
So what then is the difference between “sight,” “mental sight,” and “spiritual sight” or even Platonic sight?” What you mean is rational thought, or truth. Then say so, but, according to Kant, this wouldn’t be spiritual thinking, but he means by that term, irrational belief of a leap to faith. Kant explained nothing, he confused things, but we see this confusion in your use of different kinds of understanding, because it is he who created a divided knowledge base, which is irrational. There are different learning methodologies, we learn by touch, by sight, by testing, and so forth, but all is either reduced to rational thought, or discarded as irrational or false.
I also cannot understand the link to Genesis 2:9 “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” This was not great mystery, where was only sinless good, they disobeyed God and there was evil. Kant was also very wrong on Abraham, etc. etc.
The only thing I attribute to the tree was the command God gave to not eat it. Eve looked at the tree and saw it was good for food. There was only good, no evil because there was no disobedience of God’s command yet, and there was only one rule to obey, not to eat from that tree. I do not assert it was somehow toxic or super spiritual and so was a cause and effect from the eating per se, the effect was the disobedience itself.
Please clarify your accusation of splitting hairs? Where? How? Kant divided our knowledge base and this extends all the way into your post by you creating multiple ways of knowing. This is not splitting hairs, this is doing nothing less than redefining God.
I believe in a unified knowledge base, even a unified universe when the word is used to understand all things that exist, all things that are real. I divide this into domains, the area we live in is the physical domain, the physical universe, and God lives in the spiritual domain, generally referred to quite adequately as “heaven.” Except for the second member of the trinity who is now also physical for eternity. However, we have that spiritual dimension do we not? Our soul or mind does not cease to exist, at death we are separated from our body but in heaven given a cover, then on the new earth a resurrected body, whatever that entails.

[Reply ↓](/wordpress/?page_id=108&hop=0&replytocom=24#respond)

Leave a Reply [Cancel reply](/wordpress/?page_id=108&hop=0#respond)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>




[Proudly powered by WordPress](http://wordpress.org/)

Powered by [eShop](http://www.quirm.net/) v.6