That was the humor. Now for the real argument.
It occurred to me in reading a critique of Walls and Dongell's Why I am not a Calvinist (IVP 2004) that one could argue against Calvinism without appealing to any moral intuitions whatsoever; that indeed what I objected to in Calvinism wasn't just that I found Calvinism morally repugnant. I do, of course. But what I find equally disturbing is the fact that Calvinists use terms in ways which render those terms unrecognizable.
First of all, we must describe the biblical jigsaw puzzle. What there seems to be, in Scripture, is prima facie support for three claims.
1) God can, and does, sovereignly determine all human destiny. (The usual Calvinist proof-texts for this, Rom 9, Eph 1, John 6:44. etc. etc.
2) God loves all persons, wants them to be saved, and died for all of their sins. (John 3: 16, I Tim 2: 4,2 Cor 5: 15, 2 Pet 3: 9 etc. etc. )
3) God punishes some persons eternally in hell. (Mt 25: 41-46, Rev. 21: 8, 2 Thess 1: 9).
These claims, taken together, are inconsistent with one another. Hence, the claim above that these passages offer prima facie support for the propositions thus stated. Perhaps through a careful study of these passages we can figure out that the support is only apparent and not real. Calvinists either reject 2 or, perhaps, the natural entailments of 2. Universalists think 3 is false. Arminians reject 1.
It seems to me that there are four possible conclusions that can be drawn with respect to the relationship of these claims to special revelation.
1) The detailed study of Scripture adjudicates the issue in favor of Calvinism.
2) The detailed study of Scripture adjudicates the issue in favor of Arminianism.
3) The detailed study of Scripture adjudicates the issue in favor of universalism.
4) The detailed study of Scripture is inconclusive with respect to this issue.
Calvinists claim that they can put the jigsaw puzzle together in their own favor. They maintain the exegesis of the relevant passages leads to one and only one conclusion.
Now, in order for an appeal to special revelation, such as this one, to work, we have to insist on what I call the principle of semantic integrity. First, we must believe that Scripture is not only true, but interpretable and translatable. Otherwise, 4 simply wins by default. Remember too, that the Calvinist thinks that biblical case for Calvinism is sufficiently strong that even if we have strong intuitions that a God who did this would not be good, we ought to set those intuitions aside and accept what God has revealed in his Word.
What this means is that in order for Scripture to have any real authority we have to insist on what I call the Principle of Semantic Integrity. Let's call it PSI for short. Words have to mean what they mean in the language into which the Bible was translated. If we say God loves people, the word "love" has to mean something recognizable as love in English. Otherwise, the translators need to go find another word. If it says he desires all to be saved, then the use of "desires" has to be consistent with normal use of the terms. Of course some deference must be paid to the difference between attributing something to God and attributing it to humans, but this deference can only go so far. Otherwise, the word just stops meaning anything. What is more, if the Calvinist helps himself to deviant meanings for the terms he finds inconvenient, the Arminian, the Universalist, or even the Jehovah's Witness can do the same thing. A postmodern nightmare looms.
Does God love those whom he has not elected? People who are, basically, everlasting toast as a result, ultimately, of a choice by God? My inclination is to say that the only sensible response is to say no. God's love is only for the elect, and the lost are people God hates. But Calvinist D. A. Carson says "Of course I tell the unconverted that God loves them." Why, because, he finds attempt to exegete around passages indicated that God loves everyone to be unconvincing because there are "simply too many texts on the other side of the issue." In short, to deny God's love for all persons runs afoul of too much Scripture to be viable. Jesus loves me and everyone else, the Bible tells me so.
What he proposes is, I think, a mainstream Calvinist response, which is that although God loves everyone, his love for some is not an electing love. That kind of love is restricted to, you guessed it, the elect. But the question is whether someone God destines for perdition when he could have destined them otherwise can sensibly, in any recognizable sense, be considered to be loved by God. I think ordinary usage makes it clear that some conduct toward another person is inconsistent with the idea that God loves them.
Take for example an abusive husband. Ann Coulter once said "Liberals love America like O. J. loved Nicole." At some point abuse becomes so severe that no sensible person can reasonably call it love anymore. Or, consider the humorous lyrics of Weird Al Yankovic's "You don't Love me
We've been together for so very long
But now things are changing, oh I wonder what's wrong?
Seems you don't want me around
The passion is gone and the flames died down
I guess I lost a little bit of self-esteem
That time that you made it with the whole hockey team
You used to think I was nice
Now you tell all your friends that I'm the Antichrist
Oh, why did you disconnect the brakes on my car?
That kind of thing is hard to ignore
Got a funny feeling you don't love me anymore
I knew that we were having problems when
You put those piranhas in my bathtub again
You're still the light of my life
Oh darling, I'm beggin', won't you put down that knife?
You know I, even think it's kinda cute the way
You poison my coffee just a little each day
I still remember the way that you laughed
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft
Oh, if you don't mind me asking, what's this poisonous cobra
Doing in my underwear drawer?
Sometimes I get to thinking you don't love me anymore
You slammed my face down on the barbecue grill
Now my scars are all healing, but my heart never will
You set my house on fire
You pulled out my chest hairs with an old pair of pliers
Oh, you think I'm ugly and you say I'm cheap
You shaved off my eyebrows while I was asleep
You drilled a hole in my head
Then you dumped me in a drainage ditch and left me for dead
Oh, you know this really isn't like you at all
You never acted this way before
Honey, something tells me you don't love me anymore, oh no no
Got a funny feeling you don't love me anymore
Now, the Calvinist might respond "Ah, but these people in hell are getting their just deserts. God loves them, but is giving them what they deserve." But does this make sense? A family member of a victim who wants nothing more than to see the murderer get his just deserts doesn't love the murderer. The murderer's family member may accept that the murderer ought to receive just deserts and may desire that, but cannot be said to love that murderer unless he desires that that murderer cease to perform those actions that result in the murderer's receiving further punishment. Without a redemptive goal, love is just plain empty.
Or imagine this. Suppose someone, from the beginning of your life, made you miserable. The person ruined your relationships, destroyed your finances, undermined your reputation at every turn, and alienated you from everyone you held dear. You do not forgive this person. There is not the slightest hint of forgiveness in your soul for this person, and you spend your life plotting revenge. Then, by some magical happenstance, you have complete power of that person's existence for all eternity. If you haven't forgiven him, you make his existence, forever and ever, a living....you guess it, hell. You do to that person what the loving God of Calvinism effectually plans from the foundation of the world to do to the damned.
So the attempt to preserve the content of Scripture by saying that even though God predestines some to hell he nonetheless loves them strikes me as a violation of PSI. Now, if you notice, I have in no way appealed to moral intuition. I have not argued that if God is good God will not reprobate anyone before the foundation of the world. I am simply leaving the Calvinist with a choice. Either deny that God loves the non-elect, and call "Jesus Loves Me" sung by anyone who does not know himself elect an expression of false doctrine, or reject Calvinism.
Please note also that Calvinists cannot escape this with a tu quoque. This is an argument that 1) above is false. Similar objections against 2) and 3) only support 4, not 1.