From the theological perspective, ACIM diverges considerably from orthodox Religious doctrine. Conventional Christianity is seated in the opinion of a transcendent Lord, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the importance of the Bible as the best religious authority. ACIM, nevertheless, presents a see of Lord and Jesus that is different markedly. It identifies Jesus much less the unique of but as one among several beings who have noticed their true nature as part of God. That non-dualistic method, wherever God and generation are regarded as fundamentally one, contradicts the dualistic character of main-stream Christian theology, which sees Lord as different from His creation. Additionally, ACIM downplays the significance of crime and the necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ's atonement, key tenets of Religious faith. Instead, it posits that sin can be an impression and that salvation is a subject of repairing one's notion of reality. That significant departure from established Christian beliefs brings many theologians to dismiss ACIM as heretical or incompatible with conventional Religious faith.

From the mental perspective, the origins of ACIM increase questions about its validity. Helen Schucman, the principal scribe of the writing, claimed that the words were determined to her by an interior style she recognized as Jesus. This process of getting the text through internal dictation, referred to as channeling, is frequently achieved with skepticism. Experts fight that channeling may be understood as a emotional trend rather than a authentic spiritual revelation. david hoffmeister himself was a medical psychologist, and some declare that the voice she noticed may have been a manifestation of her unconscious mind rather than an additional heavenly entity. Also, Schucman stated ambivalence about the task and their sources, occasionally asking its reliability herself. That ambivalence, along with the technique of the text's party, portrays uncertainty on the legitimacy of ACIM as a divinely influenced scripture.

This content of ACIM also invites scrutiny from a philosophical angle. The program shows that the entire world we comprehend with this senses can be an impression and that our true truth lies beyond that physical realm. This idealistic see, which echoes particular Western concepts, challenges the materialistic and empirical foundations of American thought. Authorities disagree that the declare that the bodily world is an illusion is not substantiated by scientific evidence and runs table to the scientific technique, which relies on visible and measurable phenomena. The thought of an illusory earth may be powerful as a metaphor for the disturbances of notion caused by the confidence, but as a literal assertion, it lacks the scientific support needed to be described as a legitimate illustration of reality.

More over, the practical software of ACIM's teachings may be problematic. The course advocates for a significant type of forgiveness, suggesting that most issues are illusions and must be ignored and only knowing the inherent unity of all beings. While the training of forgiveness can certainly be therapeutic and major, ACIM's method may possibly cause individuals to curb legitimate emotions and dismiss actual injustices. By mounting all bad activities as illusions developed by the ego, there's a threat of reducing or invalidating the existed experiences of putting up with and trauma. This perception could be particularly dangerous for individuals dealing with serious problems such as for instance punishment or oppression, as it may decrease them from seeking the necessary help and interventions.