The useful application of ACIM's teachings is also a place of contention. While some people report positive transformations and particular development from after the course, the others find the methods to be useless or even harmful. The course's emphasis on forgiveness and enjoy is excellent, but experts fight that it can be overly simplified and naïve, failing to handle the difficulties of human relationships and the need for limits and accountability. Furthermore, the course's period and intensive nature can be frustrating for some people, ultimately causing burnout or disillusionment. Authorities suggest that enough time and effort needed to complete ACIM could possibly be better allocated to more empirically supported healing techniques or spiritual professions which have an established track record of effectiveness.

The broader affect of ACIM on the religious and self-help neighborhoods is also price considering. The course has inspired a significant following and has been incorporated into different New Age and religious movements. Nevertheless, its effect can be seen as the christ a double-edged sword. On a single give, it has offered a construction for persons seeking religious growth and internal peace. On another hand, its teachings can donate to a culture of spiritual skipping, where people use religious methods in order to avoid coping with personal and social issues. This will cause a form of escapism, where the concentrate on religious values distracts from the necessity of participating with and addressing real-world challenges.

Furthermore, the industrial achievement of ACIM and its related resources improves moral concerns. The expansion of workshops, publications, and seminars based on ACIM can be seen as capitalizing on individuals' religious wants and vulnerabilities. Experts disagree that the commercialization of spirituality may lead to the exploitation of seekers, who may possibly spend significant time and income in to methods that fundamentally don't provide on the promises. That commercialization can also donate to the dilution of the course's teachings, as various interpretations and changes proliferate, probably ultimately causing distress and misapplication of the principles.

Still another important aspect to consider may be the exclusivity and dogmatism that could often accompany the ACIM community. Whilst the class itself advances general enjoy and forgiveness, just how it is shown and used by some adherents can lead to a feeling of spiritual elitism. This could create an "us versus them" mentality, where those that follow ACIM are viewed as enlightened, while those that don't are viewed as misguided or unenlightened. Such attitudes can be divisive and detrimental to the course's proposed objectives of peace and unity. Authorities argue that correct religious growth must foster inclusivity and humility, rather than creating a hierarchical variance involving the spiritually awakened and the unawakened.

The question of whether ACIM is "true" fundamentally is dependent upon one's requirements for truth. From the scientific perspective, the lack of empirical evidence encouraging the claims of heavenly dictation and the course's metaphysical assertions could be reasons for skepticism. From a philosophical standpoint, the internal inconsistencies and syncretism of ACIM may lead to issues about their coherence and rational validity. From the emotional perception, the prospect of cognitive dissonance and emotional hardship raises considerations concerning the course's effect on mental health. And from a functional perspective, the combined effects described by practitioners and the possibility of commercialization and exploitation suggest that ACIM's usefulness and ethical ranking are questionable.