Moreover, the language and framework of ACIM in many cases are criticized for being overly complex and esoteric. The course's dense and repeated prose can be complicated to understand and interpret, leading to distress and misinterpretation among readers. That complexity can produce a barrier to access, which makes it burdensome for individuals to fully interact with and take advantage of the course. Some critics argue that the complicated language is really a deliberate technique to unknown having less substantive material and to produce an dream of profundity. The issue in comprehending the product also can lead to a reliance on additional teachers and interpreters, more perpetuating the commercialization and potential for exploitation within the ACIM community.

Additionally, the notion of forgiveness as shown in ACIM has been criticized to be overly easy and perhaps dismissive of real damage and injustice. The program advocates for a questionnaire of forgiveness acim that requires knowing the illusory nature of the perceived offense and allowing go of grievances. While this approach could be helpful in marketing internal peace and lowering particular suffering, it could not adequately handle the difficulties of specific situations, such as punishment or systemic injustice. Critics disagree this form of forgiveness is visible as minimizing the activities of victims and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This could cause a questionnaire of religious bypassing, where individuals use religious concepts to prevent working with painful thoughts and hard realities.

The entire worldview presented by ACIM, which stresses the illusory nature of the product world and the pride, may also be problematic. This perspective may lead to a form of religious escapism, wherever people disengage from the bodily world and its problems in favor of an idealized religious reality. While this might give short-term reduction or even a feeling of transcendence, additionally, it may create a lack of diamond with important areas of living, such as for instance relationships, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Experts disagree this disengagement can be detrimental to both the individual and society, since it advances a questionnaire of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is another position of contention. The class usually comes up as an exceptional religious path, implying that other spiritual or spiritual traditions are less valid or effective. That exclusivity may foster a sense of spiritual elitism among adherents and create division as opposed to unity. Additionally, it restricts the possibility of persons to draw on a diverse selection of spiritual sources and traditions within their particular growth and healing. Critics fight a more inclusive and integrative approach to spirituality would be more helpful and less divisive.