From a theological perception, ACIM diverges considerably from orthodox Religious doctrine. Traditional Christianity is seated in the opinion of a transcendent Lord, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the significance of the Bible as the ultimate spiritual authority. ACIM, but, presents a see of God and Jesus that is significantly diffent markedly. It explains Jesus not as the initial of but as one amongst many beings who have realized their true nature as part of God. That non-dualistic method, wherever Lord and generation are viewed as fundamentally one, contradicts the dualistic nature of popular Religious theology, which sees God as distinctive from His creation. Additionally, ACIM downplays the significance of sin and the necessity for salvation through Jesus Christ's atonement, main tenets of Religious faith. As an alternative, it posits that crime is definitely an illusion and that salvation is a matter of solving one's notion of reality. That significant departure from established Religious beliefs leads several theologians to ignore ACIM as heretical or incompatible with old-fashioned Religious faith.

From a psychological standpoint, the beginnings of ACIM increase questions about their validity. Helen Schucman, the primary scribe of the text, claimed that the words were formed to her by an interior voice she identified as Jesus. This method of obtaining the text through inner dictation, referred to as channeling, is usually achieved with skepticism. Critics fight that channeling may be understood as a mental phenomenon acim rather than genuine spiritual revelation. Schucman himself was a medical psychiatrist, and some declare that the voice she noticed could have been a manifestation of her unconscious mind as opposed to an additional heavenly entity. Additionally, Schucman stated ambivalence about the task and their roots, often wondering their credibility herself. That ambivalence, along with the technique of the text's party, casts doubt on the legitimacy of ACIM as a divinely inspired scripture.

The information of ACIM also invites scrutiny from the philosophical angle. The course shows that the world we understand with our feelings is an dream and which our true truth lies beyond that bodily realm. This idealistic view, which echoes specific Western concepts, problems the materialistic and empirical foundations of European thought. Critics fight that the declare that the physical world can be an impression isn't substantiated by empirical evidence and works counter to the medical approach, which depends on visible and measurable phenomena. The idea of an illusory world may be compelling as a metaphor for the disturbances of belief brought on by the vanity, but as a literal assertion, it lacks the empirical support necessary to be considered a legitimate representation of reality.

More over, the useful application of ACIM's teachings could be problematic. The program advocates for a significant type of forgiveness, indicating that most grievances are illusions and ought to be neglected in favor of knowing the inherent unity of beings. Whilst the practice of forgiveness can indeed be healing and major, ACIM's strategy may cause people to restrain legitimate feelings and dismiss true injustices. By mounting all bad experiences as illusions developed by the confidence, there is a danger of reducing or invalidating the lived experiences of putting up with and trauma. This perspective may be especially harmful for individuals dealing with serious problems such as abuse or oppression, as it might discourage them from seeking the necessary help and interventions.