Is it OK to eat what was sacrificed to idols or not?

More like a prejudiced response based on incomplete data.

Nope its a nogo
I actually got really sick after having eaten halal unknowingly.
After I found out, repented and prayed against it i fot healthy again.

Also i know of s prayer meeting where the whole congregation got sick after someone put halal meat there and no one.knew what they ate until much later.

That just shows me that this is no joke

Amen Sister.
Glad that many have noticed this. Lets not forget Revelation 2:20!!

Let's see..

I just ate chicken salad. I LOVE bacon. I eat sausage.

Am I going to the lake of fire? Probably.. LOL

The only good pig is a a dead pig ... cuz’ that’s where bacon comes from.

This is funny, because people in this thread gave quite different answers, so the Bible seems to be confusing, after all.

My answer was right. That settles that.

You can ask 20 people in a church and get 20 different answers for almost every question. No doubt, but often times its on non-essentials. Now if you are getting that on essential doctrines we got ourselves a problem.

I have learned to tell where someone goes to church to by how they answer questions. If they say "the Church teaches" or "I dont know what the Church teaches about that so i dont wanna say". That means they are catholics or orthodox or something similar, heavily liturgy based churches. Some lutherans got that thing going on too.
On the flip-side guys who answer "The Bible teaches" are usually non-denoms or baptists, or GOOD pentecostals (not the word of faith heretics).

And you are supposed to bring home the bacon.

Sometimes I get it at Wendy's.

Non sequitur.

People are often confused about a great many things, inside and outside of the bible...
that doesn't mean any given issue is particularly unclear.

People have free volition to bumble along just as confused as they like.
Another person's confusion doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything.

We have people in society so confused they can't even tell if they're male or female.
Just because Billy Bob is confused about his gender doesn't mean everyone else is confused about his gender.
Just because Billy Bob is confused about his gender doesn't mean there is no objective answer.

Conclusion:
The act of identifying doctrinal disparity has absolutely nothing to do with identifying "confusion" in the written scripture.
People have free volition to be confused... REGARDLESS of how clear a thing is.



...


...

A clarity of things (in this case the clarity of the text) is quite difficult to measure in any other way than to look at how people differ in their opinion about what the text says.

And 100 people will understand the Bible in 100 different ways, which indicates that the Bible is not clear, easy and explicit about all issues it talks about, IMHO.

One of the main problem I think is that the Bible is not systematic, but rather a collection of various writings, some themes are repeated many times, some themes just once. Which makes it even more harder for a reader. Not to say that many words are ambiguous, dependent on translation and even different in preserved manuscripts.

Eureka, you have identified confusion within HUMANS;
that is quite definitionally different than confusion within scripture.

The two things are not remotely the same.

I understand the Catholic church NEEDS to make these two dissimilar issues similar, in order to justify the magisterium.
But having a DESPERATE NEED to be illogical... well... it still can't turn one thing into another.



....

There's nothing ambiguous about this:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols... (Acts 15:28,29)

Here we have (1) God the Holy Spirit, (2) all the apostles gathered in Jerusalem, and (3) all the elders of the Jewish church in Jerusalem laying down the law. No ambiguity whatsoever, and as authoritative as it can get.

Trofimus,
I'm done arguing, feel free to offer your counterpoint unmolested.

Protestants have been debating this issue for hundreds of years,
and to be honest, although we disagree, we aren't generally that worked up about it.

...

the weaker brother being destroyed is matter of conscience.
if to him eating such food is sacrilege, then to see a stronger brother in the Lord eat it could cause him to stumble, when in fact the stronger brother understands that he has liberty as a Christian to eat whatever he wants because he is no longer bound to the law but has liberty through the Spirit.

the idea is for each to commend the act to God. The one who eats honors God by recognizing the liberty that Christ bought for him, and the one who abstains honors God by not wanting to partake in what seems to be sacrilege

likewise the one who eats should not condemn the one who does not eat and vice versa since they both are seeking to honor God

1 Corinthians 8:4-13

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things cameand through whom we live.

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

in my opinion, it would be much more fun to smoosh it into a big ball and punt it into the woods

They told them to not eat sacrificial meat (offered to idols) because they actually believed in the so called "god." Hence idolatry. Their conscience bore witness against them, partaking in what essentially is a form of worship with another god, but not the one true God. We know that we could eat in the temple and that all their gods are fake, superstitions. Yet for others it would be like serving another god.
They didn't make the distinction. So in our liberty we could've eaten food that was sacrificed to an idol, but had we been seen by a weaker brother they could see it as permission in idolatry.

In essence, our liberty would be their license to sin.

Its as if we are entertaining another person's superstitions. Yet, as the scripture says, we may have this knowledge but all do not have it.

I don't think I've seen one of those kebab wraps in the US.


Muslims don't have actual idols they sacrifice to. Pre-Muhammad, the evidence seems to point to Arabic-speaking Christians calling God 'Allah', and they still do. Muslims say, 'mismillah'-- 'In the name of God.'

Their concept of God falls short of the Bible's, but they claim to worship the God of Abraham.

I saw some Muslim declaring some students could graduate from a college, and he translated it into English. He declared they could graduate, 'In the name of God.' It sounded pretty strange to me. What if it was later discovered that one of the students had a mistake with their credits or had cheated?