If Obama says he is a Christian (but is really a lying Muslim) and bloodshed occurs under this guise, then it is not taqiyya. So I guess, he'd be an awful Muslim committing shirk by saying Jesus is Lord and Savior, and then using drones to kill Muslims under this lie.
You really can't claim it is taqiyya. Sorry.
As for his speech about Jesus being God:
Heckler Calls Obama the Antichrist; Obama Proclaims 'Jesus Is Lord'
The man was heckling saying "Jesus is God", and when he was escorted out, Obama replied "I agree with that. Jesus is Lord" He agrees that Jesus is God and Jesus is Lord. That would be shirk.
And according to Scripture:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Good scripture to consider...
Another scripture to consider:
President Obama has noted numerous times that Christ is Lord/the Way to salvation...and he has also shared in other interviews where he stands on issues of faith--more here at
Obama on faith: The exclusive interview « The Dude Abides . He is definately an inclusivist, in that he agrees with other believers that feel the Lord judges the heart/determines whether people are seeking him or not.....with it being the case that even those who've never heard of the name of Christ can make it into heaven just as others did in the OT. More on that was discussed at
Faith, Politics, and the Evangelical Culture of Judgment « Out of Bounds
President Obama has always appreciated the spiritually pluralistic nature of American society. He is a Christian Inclusivist who respects the beliefs of everyone in our society–Spiritual Seekers, Christian Exclusivists, and nonreligious people alike. The inclusivist view is at odds with the exclusivist view that occurs within differing camps of Christianity----but it is not a view seperate from what many in the early Church held to. Father Papademetrious (of Orthodoxy) defines "exclusivism" very precisely and narrowly: it only refers to the most extreme position that all non-Christians "will be damned because there is no salvation outside the visible Body of Christ, the Church". Papademetrious' definition of "inclusivism" reflects and expands upon his definition of "exclusivism". While allowing that salvation is possible for non-Christians, Papademetrious (again very precisely and very narrowly) states that (1) the only possible avenue by which non-Christians can escape damnation is "through the mercy of [the Christian] God"; and also that (2) non-Christians do not attain salvation (if they attain it at all) through the agency of their non-Christian religious traditions, for such salvation is only conferred on the non-Christian "in spite of the religion he practices".
Some of this was discussed more in-depth elsewhere (as seen here in
#59 ) when it comes to debates on the fate of the unsaved---as Dr. Michael Brown has had in discussing others such as Rob Bell/Gregory McDonald and others in their views on the Atonement....and more here as well in #
14/ #
15 when discussing the Civil War happening in Christendom on the issue...and has been occurring for a long time. For more, there is a brilliant academic/scholar by the name of John Sanders who has done much work in discussing the issue...specifically in a book he made entitled
"No Other Name".
There are many thoughtful believers often wondering about the final destiny of those who, through no fault of their own, do not in this lifetime hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many believers assume that all such persons will certainly be lost. ..though evangelical scholar John Sanders says we ought not to be so sure. We must affirm that salvation is only through Jesus Christ, he insists, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone saved by Jesus has heard of Jesus. One can see more in an article, published in the
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, which gave reviews on Sanders' book,
No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (
HTML PDF ). There was also a written/detailed summary of the contents of Sanders' book, viewable in a PDF file if one chosoes to click
here.
Outside of that, one can also go online and consider looking up the article under the name of
"UK Apologetics: An Evangelical Inclusivist Defends Evangelical Inclusivism". Something that another brother said best in the article entitled "Inclusivism and Universalism – To Hell With Sin? « C. Orthodoxy :
I think the New Testament is clear that “salvation is found in no one else” but Jesus. It is only because God himself took on human form, died and rose again, that humanity has any ultimate hope. Explaining how I reconcile that with inclusivism will require discussing the nature of the atonement, but I don’t want to get bogged down with complicated theories right now. Thankfully, there is a relatively easy way to remember the big three (moral influence, substitution, and Christus victor): Prophet, Priest and King.
This is a very old distinction, but I owe the reference to my former professor, Hans Boersma, whose outstanding book on the atonement is a must read: As Prophet, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection reveal what it is to be truly human; their example teaches us how to love and sacrifice and hope. As Priest, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection have, in some sense, allowed him to bear our sins in our place, and so cleanse us from them. As King, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection have actively defeated evil, not just on a personal level, but on a cosmic one. Though debates rage over the precise nature and interrelation of these elements, I believe that all three are essential to the significance of Jesus’ incarnation.
So I do not in any way deny that Jesus is the only means of salvation, but neither am I convinced that God’s justice requires that a person must have heard or embraced this truth before death. And yet, as my previous post indicates, I think we should nevertheless live as though this were a requirement. How can I say this? The answer goes right back to my understanding of the nature of the atonement: If Jesus really is the victorious King who defeated evil once and for all, then that effects everyone, not just those who hear about it. By the same token, if Jesus really is “our great High Priest,” his death was sufficient to cover all sins, even those of people who never hear of him.
It is within this context that the president can be best understood when seeing the ways that he declares Christ is Lord and yet simultaneously honors others for where they are----and noting that they can be saved. For those bent on accusing him of being a "secret Muslim", there'd be not real logic behind it in light of where other Muslims have noted him not being Muslim and people have pointed out repeatedly how it is logically consistent to see him as a Christian who has a Muslim background, no different than other believers AROUND THE WORLD who are believers in Christ and yet had backgrounds in Muslim culture (more shared on that
here and
here ). As one who had a experiences with both Christians and Muslims growing up in Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific rim (more
here,
here and here), he has always had an international perspective...and sadly, many in the U.S assume that one cannot be a Christian who works with Muslims at the same time even when other Christians do so often just as they do with all their neighbors.
