From the theological perspective, ACIM diverges somewhat from orthodox Religious doctrine. Standard Christianity is seated in the opinion of a transcendent God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the importance of the Bible as the best religious authority. ACIM, but, gifts a view of God and Jesus that is different markedly. It identifies Jesus never as the unique of but as one amongst several beings who've noticed their true nature as part of God. That non-dualistic strategy, where God and creation are viewed as fundamentally one, contradicts the dualistic nature of main-stream Religious theology, which considers Lord as specific from His creation. More over, ACIM downplays the significance of failure and the requirement for salvation through Jesus Christ's atonement, central tenets of Religious faith. Alternatively, it posits that crime is definitely an impression and that salvation is a matter of fixing one's perception of reality. That significant departure from established Religious values brings several theologians to dismiss ACIM as heretical or incompatible with old-fashioned Religious faith.

From the psychological point of view, the beginnings of ACIM increase issues about their validity. Helen Schucman, the principal scribe of the writing, said that what were formed to her by an interior style she discovered as Jesus. This technique of receiving the writing through inner dictation, referred to as channeling, is usually achieved with skepticism. Authorities disagree that channeling may be recognized as a mental trend rather than true religious revelation. david hoffmeister himself was a medical psychologist, and some declare that the style she seen may have been a manifestation of her subconscious mind as opposed to an additional divine entity. Furthermore, Schucman expressed ambivalence about the job and their sources, occasionally pondering its reliability herself. This ambivalence, in conjunction with the technique of the text's reception, portrays doubt on the legitimacy of ACIM as a divinely inspired scripture.

The information of ACIM also invites scrutiny from the philosophical angle. The class teaches that the planet we comprehend with our feelings is an dream and our correct fact lies beyond this physical realm. This idealistic see, which echoes particular Eastern concepts, problems the materialistic and scientific foundations of American thought. Authorities disagree that the claim that the bodily world is definitely an impression is not substantiated by empirical evidence and goes table to the medical technique, which relies on visible and measurable phenomena. The thought of an illusory world may be powerful as a metaphor for the disturbances of perception caused by the pride, but as a literal assertion, it lacks the scientific support necessary to be described as a valid illustration of reality.

Furthermore, the realistic application of ACIM's teachings can be problematic. The program advocates for a significant form of forgiveness, suggesting that all issues are illusions and ought to be ignored and only knowing the natural unity of beings. Whilst the exercise of forgiveness can certainly be therapeutic and transformative, ACIM's method may cause people to control genuine thoughts and ignore true injustices. By mounting all bad experiences as illusions created by the ego, there is a risk of reducing or invalidating the existed activities of suffering and trauma. This perspective may be specially hazardous for people coping with critical problems such as abuse or oppression, as it can decrease them from seeking the required support and interventions.