1.If Mysticism pits the mystic one on one with direct communication with God: where does scripture fit in (if at all?) Scripture isn't needed unless the mystic wants to use it.
2. If God is open to such one on one communication with the mystic: why do we need Jesus, the church or ritual?
We do not need ritual, the church or Christ. We do reserve the right to play with all the above. Mysticism is freeing and fun. It is also not for everybody.
3.One-ness with God is a unity which has no lack. Humanity by virtue of its human-ness is non-god and non-spirit. Efforts to link chalk with cheese abound in religion/mysticism.
Perhaps this dimension is god expressing itself physically. If God is creative energy, you are God in this dimension.
4.Religion and ritual are about "process". The means to an end. The end can be defined as god-union. Having the mind of god seems to replace having the mind of a human. After all, God didn't make a human as a seed that sprouts god-ness. Mysticism parlays floating concepts with dangling adjectives into a lifestyle that is rather vague. Either we are human as God made us or we are stuck in an egg-larvae-pupa-adult cycle on "rinse".
Okay. Whatever you want to believe.My chief point of contention with mysticism is the fast and loose way words are used which can mean practically anything.
Even everyday words have multi meanings. There is consistancy in the mystic's language. You could learn the language if you try. I doubt if that will be happening though. Wouldn't you say the imprecision is a clue to the emptiness of the entire process?
Since you haven't bothered to experience mysticism, how would you know that the entire process is empty? I have found mysticism to be thrilling and fulfilling. Not empty at all--unless you are speaking of a certain meditation technique that mystics sometimes use. But it's purpose is to empty in order to re-fill.
I have to ask, why the sudden change in demeanor? This isn't like you at all. To be frank, I'm suspicious....