I have finished reading the 3rd Adhyaya of 'Bhagwad Geeta As It Is'. But I could not stomach some of the contents of Adhyaya 2. Here they are:

Text 31

स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसी|
धर्म्याद्धी युध्दाच्छ्रेयोsन्यत् क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते|

Translation:
Considering your specific duty as a Kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

When I read the words 'fighting on religious principles', I thought to myself 'well, this is a pretty subjective matter'. Who gets to decide what is a religious principle and what isn't? If tomorrow a band of people starts looting and killing saying such-and-such activities are against the tenets of Hinduism (aren't they already!), who gets to decide whether they are justified or not?After all, we cannot expect Lord Krishna to descend to earth and sanction or disapprove it, can we? So how does this apply to the present age?

The same Text gives following lines from a source that has been vaguely mentioned as 'religious law books':

यज्ञेषु पशवो ब्रह्मन हन्यते सततं द्विजैः
संस्क्रत: किला मंत्रेश्च तेsपि स्वर्गं अवाप्नुवन

The translation given is like this - 'The brahmans attain the heavenly planets by sacrificing animals in the sacrificial fire'. The purport further elaborates saying that 'The animal sacrified gets a human life immediately without undergoing the gradual evolutionary process from one form to another'.

I had to read this line twice before I could be sure that it means what I think it means. How can this 'religious law book' sanctify killing animals in sacrificial fire'? And that too by saying that we are doing them a favor? Yeah, yeah, I know I am a non-vegetarian and so have no right to take such a self-righteous tone. But I was brought up on a non-veg diet and I am sure that if I had been given a choice, I would not have opted for it. Because it is plain wrong to kill other animals for food - especially because we longer live in caves.

Text 62

ध्यायतो विषयान पुंस: संगस्तेषुपजायते|
संगात्सन्जायते काम: कामात्क्रोधोsभिजायते|

Translation:

While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust developes, and from lust anger arises.

The purport says that 'One who is not, therefore, in Krishna consciousness, however powerful he may be in controlling the senses by artificial repression, is sure ultimately to fail, for the slightest thought of sense pleasure will agitate him to gratify his desires'.

Now, elsewhere 'Krishna consciousness' is defined as 'doing everything for the enjoyment of Krishna'. But how do we know what will and what won't be enjoyed by Lord Krishna? Again, the text mentions that we need to be guided by a person who is Krishna conscious himself. How in the world is one supposed to find such a person? In this day and age, the probability of one stumbling across a religious crook is more than finding someone who is truly enlightened. So what do we do then?

Text 64

रागद्वेषविमुक्तैस्तु विशायानिंद्रियैश्चरन|
आत्मवश्यैर्विधेयात्मा प्रसादमधिगच्छति|

Translation:

But a person free from all attachment and aversion and able to control his senses through regulative principles of freedom can obtain the complete mercy of the Lord.

A part of the purport goes something like this - If Krishna wants, the devotee can do anything which is ordinarily undesirable; and if Krishna does not want, he shall not do that which he would have ordinarily done for his own satisfaction.

Now, let's say I am craving for a piece of pastry that is so full of calories that I can practically see them dripping off it. I know that it won't do me any good and hence should be avoided. But I can argue that I will offer it as Prasadam to Krishna first and then eat it. So actually I am doing this for my own satisfaction but can argue that I am doing it for the Lord's enjoyment. And this clearly is not the way to go. So what is?