From the theological perception, ACIM diverges significantly from orthodox Religious doctrine. Standard Christianity is grounded in the opinion of a transcendent God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the importance of the Bible as the ultimate spiritual authority. ACIM, nevertheless, gift ideas a see of God and Jesus that is different markedly. It explains Jesus much less the initial of but as one of many beings who've understood their correct character included in God. That non-dualistic strategy, wherever God and formation are viewed as fundamentally one, contradicts the dualistic character of conventional Christian theology, which sees God as unique from His creation. More over, ACIM downplays the significance of crime and the need for salvation through Jesus Christ's atonement, main tenets of Christian faith. Alternatively, it posits that crime can be an illusion and that salvation is really a matter of correcting one's understanding of reality. That revolutionary departure from recognized Religious beliefs leads several theologians to ignore ACIM as heretical or incompatible with old-fashioned Christian faith.

From a emotional perspective, the beginnings of ACIM increase questions about its validity. Helen Schucman, the primary scribe of the text, said that the language were formed to her by an internal voice she recognized as Jesus. This technique of getting the writing through inner dictation, referred to as channeling, is often achieved with skepticism. Critics argue that channeling could be understood as a emotional phenomenon rather than real religious revelation. Schucman  david hoffmeister was a clinical psychologist, and some claim that the style she heard may have been a manifestation of her subconscious mind as opposed to an external divine entity. Additionally, Schucman expressed ambivalence about the job and its beginnings, occasionally pondering their credibility herself. This ambivalence, coupled with the method of the text's reception, portrays doubt on the legitimacy of ACIM as a divinely encouraged scripture.

The information of ACIM also encourages scrutiny from a philosophical angle. The program shows that the world we see with this senses is an impression and which our true reality lies beyond this bodily realm. This idealistic view, which echoes specific Eastern philosophies, difficulties the materialistic and scientific foundations of European thought. Authorities argue that the declare that the bodily earth is an dream isn't substantiated by empirical evidence and works counter to the medical technique, which utilizes visible and measurable phenomena. The idea of an illusory earth might be engaging as a metaphor for the distortions of perception caused by the vanity, but as a literal assertion, it lacks the scientific support necessary to be described as a valid representation of reality.

More over, the realistic program of ACIM's teachings could be problematic. The program advocates for a revolutionary type of forgiveness, indicating that most grievances are illusions and must certanly be ignored in favor of recognizing the inherent unity of beings. Whilst the practice of forgiveness may indeed be healing and transformative, ACIM's strategy might lead people to control respectable feelings and ignore actual injustices. By mounting all bad experiences as illusions developed by the confidence, there's a danger of reducing or invalidating the existed experiences of suffering and trauma. That perspective may be specially hazardous for persons working with significant issues such as punishment or oppression, as it can decrease them from seeking the necessary support and interventions.