Recently a question was asked that followed this pattern:
- "Factual" assertion (not specific to Christianity, but sets the context for the questions that follow)
- Set of "Doctrinal" questions, based on the "factual" assertion
- Challenge the "factual" assertion, supported by a range of non doctrine (even non Christianity) specific resources. Respected, "factual" resources, but not specific to the doctrine that was being asked about. Because some of the questions that followed were partially based on this assertion, some of these resources went some way to answering the questions before we even got onto the doctrinal bit.
- Answer the doctrinal questions, citing a resource specific to the doctrine being asked about.
The original poster responded in comments, saying that they particularly found the first bit of my answer (challenging their "factual" assertion, citing supporting resources of course) useful. But then another user commented, saying they were concerned that I had used resources that weren't specific to the doctrine being asked about in my answer (and that therefore my answer couldn't be regarded as purely explaining the point of view of this particular doctrine).
I responded, trying to explain that I cited the opinion of experts on the "factual" matter to address that part of the question and experts on the doctrine to answer the doctrine-specific questions, but it appears the user commenting still isn't happy that I used anything other than doctrine specific resources to support my answer.
I'd therefore like to bring the matter here to get some input from the whole community about what should happen in cases like this.
- Should questions that ask about a specific doctrine only be answered with supporting resources that originate from proponents of that doctrine?
- If a question makes a questionable assertion of fact before asking a doctrine-specific question, is it acceptable to use non-doctrine-specific resources to challenge that factual assertion?
- If the original poster finds part of an answer useful, is that sufficient justification for its inclusion (regardless what other users think about it)?