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?
Underlying the OP question is an issue of reconciling the attitude of Acts (and Revelation) with that of Paul. Acts and Revelation forbid eating food offered to idols. For Paul, the pagan deities are not real, and their idols have no power. So he says:

> 
> As to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has
> no real existence and that there is no God but one... We are no
> worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. (1 Cor. 8:4,7)
> 
> 
> 

But Acts is quite clear that for Christians, abstaining from such for is a requirement:

> 
> For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no
> greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from
> what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is
> strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you
> will do well. (Acts 15:28-29)
> 
> 
> 

And the Book of Revelation condemns eating such foods in no uncertain terms:

> 
> You tolerate the woman Jez′ebel, who
> calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants
> to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. (Rev. 2:20)
> 
> 
> 

Paul's solution to the problem was although no food is forbidden, a person should also respect the sensitivities of believers who think the pagan deities have real power. So he says:

> 
> Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling
> block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at
> table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his
> conscience is weak, to 'eat food offered to idols?' And so by your
> knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ
> died. Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their
> conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food
> is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I
> cause my brother to fall. (1 Cor. 8:9-13)
> 
> 
> 

[![Photo of a Buddhist service with food on a table along with a statue of Buddha](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cruQS.jpg "Photo of a Buddhist service with food on a table along with a statue of Buddha")](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cruQS.jpg "Photo of a Buddhist service with food on a table along with a statue of Buddha")

In the first century, Christians had to decide whether to follow the letter of the rule given in Acts or to accept Paul's teaching that since idols have no power, we are free to eat foods offered to idols unless a fellow Christian's faith is threatened by such a thing. Today, the issue is generally moot. But when a fellow believer might be offended if I were to eat food offered to Krishna or Buddha, I need to decide whether it is a greater sin to turn down the food my host presents or to, in Paul's words, "tempt" fellow Christian to eat a supposedly forbidden food and thereby compromise his faith.