More over, the language and design of ACIM in many cases are criticized for being overly complex and esoteric. The course's dense and similar prose could be tough to know and read, ultimately causing distress and misinterpretation among readers. That difficulty can cause a buffer to entry, making it hard for people to fully interact with and benefit from the course. Some critics argue that the complicated language is just a planned strategy to hidden the lack of substantive material and to create an illusion of profundity. The difficulty in comprehending the product can also result in a dependence on additional teachers and interpreters, more perpetuating the commercialization and potential for exploitation within the ACIM community.

Furthermore, the notion of forgiveness as presented in ACIM has been criticized to be excessively simplified and possibly dismissive of true hurt and injustice. The class advocates for a form of forgiveness that involves realizing the illusory nature of the observed offense and letting go of grievances. While this process may be valuable in selling internal peace and lowering particular enduring, it might not acceptably address the complexities of particular conditions, such as david hoffmeister acim  punishment or systemic injustice. Experts argue that this kind of forgiveness can be seen as reducing the experiences of patients and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This will result in a questionnaire of religious skipping, where people use religious methods to prevent working with painful thoughts and difficult realities.

The overall worldview presented by ACIM, which stresses the illusory nature of the substance earth and the pride, can be problematic. That perspective may cause an application of religious escapism, where individuals disengage from the physical earth and its challenges in support of an idealized spiritual reality. While this could give short-term comfort or perhaps a feeling of transcendence, it can also cause a lack of diamond with crucial aspects of life, such as relationships, responsibilities, and social issues. Experts disagree that disengagement can be detrimental to equally the average person and society, because it promotes an application of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is still another position of contention. The course often comes up as an excellent religious path, hinting that different religious or spiritual traditions are less legitimate or effective. That exclusivity may foster a sense of spiritual elitism among adherents and create division as opposed to unity. Additionally, it limits the possibility of persons to pull on a varied selection of spiritual resources and traditions in their particular growth and healing. Critics fight that the more inclusive and integrative method of spirituality could be more helpful and less divisive.