The sources of ACIM are contentious. Helen Schucman, a clinical and research psychologist, said that the text was dictated to her by an interior voice she determined as Jesus Christ. This state is achieved with doubt because it lacks empirical evidence and depends seriously on Schucman's personal experience and subjective interpretation. Critics fight that this undermines the reliability of ACIM, since it is difficult to confirm the claim of divine dictation. Furthermore, Schucman's qualified history in psychology might have influenced the content of ACIM, blending mental ideas with spiritual a few ideas in a way that some discover questionable. The dependence on a single individual's experience improves considerations in regards to the detachment and universality of the text.

Philosophically, ACIM is based on a blend of Christian terminology and Eastern mysticism, delivering a worldview that some disagree is internally inconsistent and contradictory to standard spiritual doctrines. As an example, ACIM posits that the material world is definitely an impression and that true the reality is simply spiritual. That see can struggle with the scientific and logical approaches of American acim videos viewpoint, which highlight the significance of the substance earth and individual experience. Moreover, ACIM's reinterpretation of old-fashioned Christian ideas, such as for instance failure and forgiveness, is visible as distorting primary Religious teachings. Authorities argue that syncretism contributes to a dilution and misunderstanding of recognized spiritual values, potentially primary readers astray from more coherent and historically grounded spiritual paths.

Psychologically, the teachings of ACIM can be problematic. The course encourages a questionnaire of denial of the material world and personal knowledge, selling the indisputable fact that individuals should surpass their physical existence and concentration entirely on spiritual realities. That perception may result in a form of cognitive dissonance, where persons battle to reconcile their existed experiences with the teachings of ACIM. Experts fight that can lead to psychological stress, as people might sense pressured to disregard their feelings, ideas, and bodily feelings in favor of an abstract spiritual ideal. Moreover, ACIM's focus on the illusory character of enduring is seen as dismissive of real individual problems and hardships, perhaps reducing the importance of handling real-world problems and injustices.

The realistic request of ACIM's teachings can also be a point of contention. While some people report good transformations and particular development from following a program, others find the methods to be inadequate as well as harmful. The course's emphasis on forgiveness and enjoy is excellent, but experts fight that it may be overly easy and naïve, declining to deal with the complexities of human relationships and the necessity for limits and accountability. Furthermore, the course's period and intensive character may be overwhelming for some individuals, resulting in burnout or disillusionment. Critics declare that the full time and energy needed to complete ACIM could be greater used on more empirically reinforced therapeutic practices or spiritual disciplines which have an established track record of effectiveness.