Being intellectually curious, Bob's repeated insistence that the government should throw Christians to lions got me wondering if there was any basis to this claim. So I did a bit of cursory research, and the answer is more nuanced. (I am not a historian, I'm just going off of a couple articles I found that delve into this topic; you can find them
here and
here.)
The general historical view is that Christians were not specifically singled out by the Romans just to be thrown to lions. Many forms of execution were employed, including beheadings and crucifixions, so it wasn't just being torn to shreds by animals. In addition, it wasn't just lions; all manner of beasts, including other big cats, bulls, boars, and dogs, were used because the crowds liked variety. No form of execution was limited to a specific category of criminal.
Christians were also not always immediately rounded up and executed just for being Christians. In some cases, they would merely be exiled, or perhaps sent to do forced labor. Of the executions, though, many were done at a local level by provincial governors or mobs of angry citizens. There are only a couple of instances where Christians were forced to sacrifice to the Roman gods under penalty of punishment, including death, but these were enacted during times of societal strife when the emperors in question believed they needed to win the gods' favor, and the persecution was fairly short-lived. Naturally, when Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion, it was no longer a crime.
There really isn't a firsthand account of a Christian specifically being killed by lions. Most accounts of Christian executions were recorded decades or centuries after the fact, and many have to be taken with a grain of salt due to that, as well as bias from the church historians that sought to paint the Roman officials in a worse light. It's possible that the image of Christians being thrown to lions was so powerful because it served as an allusion to the story of Daniel in the lions' den, a similar story of a religious man being condemned because of his faith.
So while it did probably happen at least once, given the number of criminals executed over a few centuries of Roman rule, it was hardly widespread or specifically a Christian punishment. In other words, Bob's retarded for demanding something that never really happened in the first place.
((())) finds Christianity "abusive" because Christianity, unlike ((()))ism, forbids the killing of abusive bitches.

All "First Temple Jews" are dead for at least 2500 years.
A Jew misrepresenting Christianity? Say it ain't so!
While "thou shalt not kill" is indeed a widespread translation of the commandment, the general Christian understanding is that it does in fact mean a prohibition on murder. My pastor was very clear on this in our Old Testament studies; while killing is generally bad, sometimes it needs to be done to prevent greater harm, or harm to your person. Murder is a sin, however, because it involves premeditation to end someone's life, a conscious decision.
Also, that bio is this meme incarnate:
