If you don't know that it has been sacrificed to idols, then it is okay,
1 Corinthians 10:

> 
> 25Eat whatever is sold in the meat market **without raising any question** on the ground of conscience.
> 
> 
> 

Don't ask. Just eat.

> 
> 26For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you **without raising any question** on the ground of conscience.
> 
> 
> 

Again, don't ask.

> 
> 28But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then **do not eat it**, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience—
> 
> 
> 

If you know that it has been sacrificed to idols, then don't eat it in front of them.

> 
> 29I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
> 
> 
> 

What if you know that it has been sacrificed to idols and no one else is around, is it okay to eat?
['https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/81217', 'https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com', 'https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/35953/']
**TL;DR:** There is no reason we should care whether our food has been sacrificed to idols.

The underlying idea here is whether one is committing idolatry, which is the belief that anything, other than God or his agents, has any supernatural power or attribute.

Believing that a rabbit's foot provides good luck is a form of idolatry, but so is believing that food that has been sacrificed to an idol is somehow different from food that hasn't.
Neither the rabbit's foot nor the food have any supernatural attributes.

To avoid something because it is reputed to have a non-existent attribute is equivalent to admitting that it *does* have that attribute.

For you, it shouldn't matter at all whether the food was sacrificed, any more than you should care what the phase of the Moon is today, or what constellation was in the sky at your birth.

But, if someone gives you something and explicitly or implicitly tells you it has supernatural attributes, *then* you should refuse it.
Not because it makes any difference to you, but because it makes a difference to the other person.
By taking it, you are implicitly endorsing and encouraging false beliefs, rather than providing the good example that every Christian should be.

> 
> But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience —
> **I do not mean your conscience, but his.** For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?
> 
> 
> 

Here "conscience" means:

> 
> as distinguishing between what is morally good and bad, prompting to do the former and shun the latter, commending the one, condemning the other
> 
> 
> 

Rejecting the offered food shows the other person that you are condemning the act of sacrificing to idols.

---

Consider a non-religious analogy.

You are visiting Bavaria and when the waiter pours your coffee he proudly tells you that the pot he is holding was used by Hitler himself when he visited the inn in 1942.

What message does it send if you smile, say danke schön, and proceed to drink it?  

What message does it send if you refuse the coffee?
The rationale for Paul's advice comes from the principle in v21; "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and [also] of the table of demons".

This follows on from vv 18-20. Israel were "partners in the altar" (v18, RSV) when they sacrificed, in that God and the worshippers both had their own shares in most of the sacrificed animals. Conversely, those who shared in the communal sacrificial meals of other gods were "partners with demons" (v20). It was necessary to choose. The same choice remains for Christians in that we now share in the "Lord's Supper", at the table over which the Lord presides. We must choose one or the other. The point is that we must avoid sharing in the worship of other gods, by participating in the their communal meals, and we must also avoid giving other people the impression that we are particpating indirectly.

If nobody else is involved, it seems to me that the deciding factor is what you yourself think you are doing if you get hold of meat which was previously "dedicated" to some other god. If you think you are participating in the original sacrificial meal, you are in the position of ch8 v7; "Some... eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled."

But if you are giving thanks to God for your food (ch10 v30) and are confident that its previous history doesn't affect its value in the sight of God, then you are in the position of "liberty" in ch8 v8; "Food will not commend us to God". The dictum of ch10 v25, "Eat whatever is sold", can still apply even if we have asked the question anyway. In other words, it makes no difference one way or the other, unless we think it makes a difference. See the principle that runs through Galatians; we are living in liberty, not under law.