Furthermore, the language and framework of ACIM in many cases are criticized to be very complex and esoteric. The course's dense and repetitive prose could be complicated to know and understand, leading to frustration and misinterpretation among readers. That complexity can make a barrier to entry, making it burdensome for people to fully engage with and benefit from the course. Some experts fight that the complicated language is just a deliberate method to unknown the possible lack of substantive material and to create an impression of profundity. The problem in comprehending the material may also result in a reliance on outside teachers and interpreters, more perpetuating the commercialization and potential for exploitation within the ACIM community.

Additionally, the thought of forgiveness as presented in ACIM has been criticized to be very acim basic and potentially dismissive of real hurt and injustice. The class advocates for a questionnaire of forgiveness that involves realizing the illusory character of the observed offense and letting move of grievances. While this approach could be helpful in promoting inner peace and reducing personal suffering, it could maybe not adequately handle the complexities of certain scenarios, such as for instance abuse or endemic injustice. Authorities argue that form of forgiveness is visible as reducing the activities of victims and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This may result in a form of spiritual skipping, wherever people use religious methods to prevent coping with unpleasant emotions and difficult realities.

The overall worldview shown by ACIM, which stresses the illusory nature of the material earth and the ego, may also be problematic. This perspective may lead to an application of spiritual escapism, where people disengage from the physical earth and its issues in favor of an idealized spiritual reality. While this could provide temporary relief or even a feeling of transcendence, additionally, it may result in a lack of involvement with essential areas of life, such as for instance associations, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Experts disagree that this disengagement may be detrimental to equally the person and society, because it promotes a questionnaire of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is still another position of contention. The class usually comes up as a superior religious journey, hinting that different spiritual or religious traditions are less legitimate or effective. That exclusivity may foster an expression of religious elitism among adherents and produce division rather than unity. It also restricts the possibility of persons to bring on a varied range of spiritual methods and traditions in their personal development and healing. Authorities argue that a more inclusive and integrative way of spirituality could be more valuable and less divisive.