Furthermore, the language and framework of ACIM tend to be criticized to be excessively complicated and esoteric. The course's dense and similar prose can be difficult to comprehend and understand, leading to distress and misinterpretation among readers. That difficulty can create a barrier to access, making it burdensome for persons to completely interact with and take advantage of the course. Some critics argue that the complicated language is a deliberate method to obscure the lack of substantive content and to produce an dream of profundity. The problem in comprehending the substance can also result in a dependence on additional teachers and interpreters, further perpetuating the commercialization and potential for exploitation within the ACIM community.

Additionally, the thought of forgiveness as shown in ACIM has been criticized to be overly simplified and possibly dismissive of true damage and injustice. The class advocates for a questionnaire of forgiveness that requires knowing the illusory character of the observed offense and letting move of grievances. While this approach can be valuable in selling inner peace and lowering particular putting up a course in miracles with, it may not acceptably address the complexities of specific scenarios, such as for instance abuse or systemic injustice. Authorities fight that this form of forgiveness is visible as minimizing the activities of subjects and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This could result in a questionnaire of religious skipping, where people use spiritual methods to avoid coping with unpleasant feelings and difficult realities.

The general worldview shown by ACIM, which highlights the illusory character of the substance earth and the ego, can be problematic. That perspective can lead to a form of spiritual escapism, where people disengage from the physical world and its problems and only an idealized religious reality. While this may provide temporary comfort or a sense of transcendence, additionally it may cause a insufficient involvement with essential facets of life, such as relationships, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Experts disagree this disengagement could be detrimental to equally the patient and society, since it encourages an application of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is still another level of contention. The course frequently comes up as an exceptional spiritual path, implying that different religious or religious traditions are less legitimate or effective. That exclusivity can foster an expression of religious elitism among adherents and build section rather than unity. In addition, it limits the prospect of persons to pull on a diverse range of spiritual resources and traditions inside their particular development and healing. Critics fight that a more inclusive and integrative approach to spirituality could be more valuable and less divisive.