I came across this and thought it apropos:Disclaimer: I do not come from a Christian perspective, but was formerly of the faith and hold a degree in theology. My views are "spiritual but skeptical," and I am not an atheist.
In Luke 16, Jesus tackles the issue of human greed, selfishness, and the callous disregard of the poor. These are important moral themes, but his “solution” to the problem of selfishness and justice is inherently unethical and morally abominable. Rather than propose some equitable form of justice (such as giving the rich man another lifetime as a poor, disregarded beggar to teach him an important lesson), Jesus literally condones setting the rich man on fire, allowing him to burn “in agony,” and denying him even a single drop of water. In effect, Jesus’s moral solution is to be even worse to the rich man than the rich man was to Lazarus - in the most extreme way possible. If the Rich Man’s conduct toward Lazarus is morally reprehensible, how much more reprehensible is the conduct of one who denies “a single drop of water” to a person fire?
Even if the story is taken as a parable, rather than a literal depiction of the afterlife, the moral flaw in Jesus’s illustration remains, in the sense that Jesus speaks of this scenario with approval and clearly views it as righteous. I am not here interested in debating the historicity of Jesus, or the realities of God, heaven and hell, but whether Jesus is even worthy of consideration as a moral philosopher. This parable alone invalidates Jesus’s standing as a worthwhile moralist or ethical teacher in my opinion. I am not interested in even considering the ethical teachings of a man who finds the scenario depicted in Luke 16 (even as a fictional illustration via parable) to be morally correct.