It's silly to say that any interpretation is equally likely, including satire. Obviously some meanings must be more likely.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Do YOU honestly think that the writer of 1 John intended to make a statement that superseded all previous statements about God's nature and to declare all God's actions to be loving?
Why not? A lot of the Gospel is attempting to supersede prior writings. It happens all the time. So does satire. How many people think that Machiavelli was was serious when he wrote "The Prince" but it too was satire.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_political_satire_or_as_deceit
Because I just don't see how that could have been intended.
See above...