# Who is making the claim? — 35-minute teaching guide

Audience: adult church groups, educators and older students with teacher guidance. Use public announcement text, not private conversations. A free discussion resource. See our editorial accountability statement for information about AI assistance.

## Learning outcome
Participants can distinguish a documented statement, a word's meaning, observed reactions, a Christian interpretation—and can identify what evidence would change their view.

## Preparation
Read the Gemini naming case alongside Google’s original naming explanation. Check the linked source before the session. The example is useful because the company supplies multiple explanations. Include the full relevant naming context, not just the mythological sentence.

## Session
0–5 minutes: Ask “What would you need to know before deciding what a product name means?” Do not ask participants to reveal religious identity or private AI exchanges.

5–15: In pairs, mark an announcement: circle actual company claims, underline naming explanations, place a question beside unknowns. Identify event versus publication date. Check whether the source is original, a journalist's paraphrase or a chatbot summary.

15–25: Sort four statements into categories. A company uses a name (fact); a dictionary explains a word (meaning); one writer dislikes the name (reaction); a Christian argues ultimate trust belongs to God (interpretation). Discuss why the categories are not interchangeable.

25–32: Each pair writes a four-sentence response: what is established, what remains unknown, a proportionate Christian question, and what evidence to seek next. No claims about hidden motives.

32–35: Exit ticket: name one fact you checked and one belief you should not present as a fact.

## Facilitator answer guide
A mythological connection can be real even when a secular naming reason also exists. One response does not establish public sentiment. A statement of company intention is evidence of stated intention, not proof of implementation. Respect participants who reject AI Faith Monitor's theological interpretation while accepting its verified facts.

## Family adaptation
Ask: Who said it? Can we see the original? What else might it mean? Should a tool decide this for us? Who is a trusted person we can discuss it with? Avoid frightening images and adult controversy. Adults should model checking rather than demanding that children accept AI Faith Monitor's claims.

## Five-part distinction
Documented fact: inspect the original source before class. Meaning: inspect more than one relevant sense. Public reaction: label any example as one response. Christian interpretation: discuss stewardship and truthfulness, not alleged hidden motives.