More over, the language and structure of ACIM tend to be criticized for being overly complicated and esoteric. The course's thick and similar prose could be complicated to know and interpret, leading to frustration and misinterpretation among readers. That difficulty can create a barrier to access, making it difficult for people to fully engage with and take advantage of the course. Some experts fight that the complicated language is really a deliberate approach to unknown the possible lack of substantive material and to create an illusion of profundity. The problem in comprehending the product may also cause a dependence on additional teachers and interpreters, further perpetuating the commercialization and possibility of exploitation within the ACIM community.

Additionally, the thought of forgiveness as presented in ACIM has been criticized for being overly simplistic and perhaps dismissive of true hurt and injustice. The course advocates for a form of forgiveness that requires knowing the david hoffmeister a course in miracles  illusory character of the perceived offense and letting move of grievances. While this method may be helpful in promoting internal peace and lowering particular putting up with, it might perhaps not sufficiently handle the difficulties of certain circumstances, such as for instance abuse or systemic injustice. Critics argue that this form of forgiveness can be seen as minimizing the experiences of patients and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This could lead to an application of spiritual skipping, where individuals use religious concepts to prevent working with unpleasant thoughts and hard realities.

The overall worldview presented by ACIM, which stresses the illusory nature of the product world and the ego, may also be problematic. That perspective may result in a form of religious escapism, wherever persons disengage from the physical earth and its difficulties and only an idealized religious reality. While this may give short-term aid or even a feeling of transcendence, it can also create a not enough involvement with important areas of living, such as associations, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Critics argue that disengagement can be detrimental to both the average person and culture, since it encourages an application of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is still another point of contention. The program often presents itself as an exceptional religious journey, implying that different religious or spiritual traditions are less valid or effective. That exclusivity can foster a feeling of religious elitism among adherents and produce division rather than unity. It also limits the potential for individuals to pull on a varied range of religious assets and traditions in their particular development and healing. Critics argue a more inclusive and integrative way of spirituality will be more useful and less divisive.