>What's wrong with mysticism biblically?
When it's used as a sieve to inject gnostic philosophy into things it is very wrong.
>church authorities do not acknowledge a demiurge or that the flesh is inherently evil.
Ok, good. But that alone doesn't make a person not a gnostic, or accepting of various ideas of that type. I'm thinking stuff like hesychasm, ascending to godhood, etc.
>John the Baptist was the last prophet. The church does not acknowledge new prophets.
If you know the Bible, you'll see that false prophets are mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter 2. He says that there shall be false prophets among you. John says the same thing in 1 John 4:1. Paul says the same in Acts 20:28-32. St. Jude says the same in his epistle, verses 3 and 4. Jezebel is claimed to be a "prophetess" in Revelation 2:20. These people claim to bring new revelation or new teaching, sometimes under the guise of it being "church tradition" but which is not in Scripture. This is similar to the pharisees whom Christ rebuked in Mark 7, saying, "laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men," and also, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered".
With this in mind, we are warned by Paul to withdraw from those who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned, and avoid them (Romans 16:17) and that, (1 Timothy 6:3-5):
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
>There's one Orthodox church.
There are many who claim to be orthodox. Even Judaism claims itself to be orthodoxy. Then you have monophysites, and so on. They claim to be the one true way. However, there is only "One Lord, one faith and one baptism" according to Paul, in Ephesians 4:5. And all of these are in disagreement despite whatever titles each applies to themselves.
>A single source of authority to which everything is subject.
The Constitution recognizes the Lord in the part where it mentions the year of our Lord, and the Declaration of Independence recognizes the Creator. Everyone, including the three branches of government are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, wherein God is recognized as the Supreme authority.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling (United States v. Macintosh, 1931) mentioned that "we are a Christian people," in reference to the argument made by Associated Justice David Brewer to the same effect in another ruling about forty years earlier, frankly acknowledging this fact.
If you have a worldly king who is placed above you, then you are no longer part of "one nation under God." Under the so-called monarchic structure, you actually have a duopoly between serving a man (the "monarch") and God. So-called "monarchies" are actually duopolies, because it's not "one nation [directly] under God." Only by being one nation under God can one best serve and be protected from interference to serve God without interference. That is why we have freedom of religion, although that is under threat by wicked forces now; and I suppose always has been. Man cannot step into the authority of God. If you have imperfect man choosing what is allowed to believe, that prevents the spirit of liberty from prevailing. And liberty is a Biblically-defined concept, spoken of in multiple places in the New Testament.
Hopefully that helps explain why replacing God with a man (in absolute authority) is not a biblical practice. After all, we learn that one cannot serve two masters. "Either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
>All western democracies were born as a rejection of Christian monarchical authority, and therefore are demonic.
Nice misplaced nationalism. Not that I have a problem with that idea in itself. We see that the nations still exist in the final kingdom. But if you think that replacing truth with eastern mystical philosophies, like meditation to make oneself ascend to godhood, then you are incredibly misguided. The truth is not based on a geographic location. Being located in a certain vicinity does not make one true. Being located in Asia does not make a belief system reliable, and if you base your thought process on that kind of thinking you are severely misguided and vulnerable to subversion by satanic falsehoods, which you will swallow because they come from a certain region.
If you want to talk Hollywood or western media, then yeah definitely that is very demonic. But that comes from Judaism, as I have previously argued above; If Judaism was in Russia, that would not make it any more true. And in fact, that was the basis of revolutionary bolshevism originally.