Furthermore, the language and structure of ACIM are often criticized for being overly complex and esoteric. The course's dense and similar prose could be challenging to know and read, resulting in distress and misinterpretation among readers. This complexity can produce a buffer to access, making it burdensome for individuals to completely engage with and take advantage of the course. Some experts argue that the convoluted language is just a purposeful technique to hidden the possible lack of substantive content and to create an dream of profundity. The issue in comprehending the material also can result in a reliance on outside educators and interpreters, more perpetuating the commercialization and possibility of exploitation within the ACIM community.

Furthermore, the notion of forgiveness as presented in ACIM has been criticized to be overly simplistic and possibly dismissive of actual damage and injustice. The program advocates for a questionnaire of forgiveness that requires realizing the illusory nature of  david hoffmeister observed offense and making move of grievances. While this approach could be valuable in selling inner peace and reducing particular suffering, it could not adequately handle the difficulties of particular situations, such as for instance abuse or endemic injustice. Experts fight that this kind of forgiveness is seen as minimizing the activities of victims and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This will cause a questionnaire of spiritual skipping, where persons use spiritual concepts to avoid working with painful feelings and difficult realities.

The entire worldview presented by ACIM, which emphasizes the illusory nature of the product world and the vanity, can be problematic. That perspective may lead to an application of spiritual escapism, wherever individuals disengage from the bodily world and their challenges and only an idealized religious reality. While this can give temporary reduction or even a feeling of transcendence, it can also result in a lack of diamond with important areas of life, such as for instance relationships, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Critics fight that disengagement can be detrimental to both the patient and society, because it stimulates an application of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is still another position of contention. The course frequently presents itself as a superior religious way, hinting that other spiritual or spiritual traditions are less legitimate or effective. This exclusivity can foster a sense of spiritual elitism among adherents and create team as opposed to unity. It also restricts the potential for individuals to draw on a diverse array of religious assets and traditions within their personal development and healing. Authorities disagree that the more inclusive and integrative way of spirituality would be more valuable and less divisive.