When discussing oppositional beliefs in religion, conversation is often anything but impersonal.
It's normal for people to invest their identity into the bookends of their life - where they came from; where they're going. Frequently, theism is brought into play as a governing force - not just in moral expression, but in daily habit -- What they say to others; their political beliefs; how they reconcile negative feelings.
It's therefore natural, Antisocial, for people to become testy when you poke at the legitimacy of this basic system of belief. More often that not, miscommunication between parties escalates once-friendly interchange into a philosophical fistfight.
For some, challenging personal belief is highly offensive - like spitting in the face of their way of life. Intent becomes obscured under charged emotion. Objectivity drops below zero...
To this end, I dislike "debating" religious perspective as it very often spirals into an exchange that becomes less about doctrine, and more about justifying personal choice. Theism is extremely captivating; finger-pointing isn't.
Not saying you need to agree with me/this is what necessarily happened between you and Anja. You seemed confused by Anja's response, so I thought I'd try to add some clarity.