Moreover, the language and structure of ACIM in many cases are criticized for being excessively complicated and esoteric. The course's thick and repeated prose can be tough to understand and understand, ultimately causing frustration and misinterpretation among readers. This complexity can make a buffer to entry, which makes it burdensome for individuals to totally engage with and benefit from the course. Some experts disagree that the convoluted language is a strategic tactic to hidden the lack of substantive material and to produce an illusion of profundity. The difficulty in comprehending the material can also lead to a reliance on outside educators and interpreters, further perpetuating the commercialization and prospect of exploitation within the ACIM community.

Moreover, the thought of forgiveness as shown in ACIM has been criticized for being overly easy and perhaps dismissive of actual hurt and injustice. The class advocates for an application of forgiveness that requires knowing the illusory character of the perceived offense and letting go acim of grievances. While this method can be valuable in marketing inner peace and reducing personal suffering, it might not sufficiently handle the difficulties of specific conditions, such as for instance punishment or endemic injustice. Authorities fight that this kind of forgiveness can be seen as minimizing the experiences of victims and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This could lead to a form of spiritual bypassing, where individuals use religious methods to prevent coping with uncomfortable feelings and hard realities.

The overall worldview shown by ACIM, which stresses the illusory nature of the material earth and the confidence, may also be problematic. This perspective can cause a form of religious escapism, wherever individuals disengage from the bodily world and its issues and only an idealized religious reality. While this can offer temporary reduction or even a feeling of transcendence, it can also cause a lack of wedding with important facets of life, such as associations, responsibilities, and social issues. Critics disagree this disengagement could be detrimental to equally the person and society, as it promotes a questionnaire of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is another level of contention. The program frequently comes up as a superior spiritual path, implying that different spiritual or religious traditions are less valid or effective. This exclusivity can foster a feeling of religious elitism among adherents and build division as opposed to unity. In addition, it restricts the possibility of persons to draw on a varied selection of spiritual assets and traditions within their personal growth and healing. Experts disagree a more inclusive and integrative method of spirituality will be more useful and less divisive.