Let me get this right. In summary you are saying -
There are absolute morals as laid down by God
Laws are most obvious result of this absolute morality
We know when we do wrong because we can feel it is wrong
We know when we are acting unlawfully because unlawful = wrong
Gods actions cannot be immoral by definition
Is that a fair summary?
But again - Except in the very black and white scenarios you put forward no two people FEEL the same way about a given situation. The law is also no guide in more complex situations.
Take the fighter pilot bombing a target known to contain civilians (even if it is a "justifiable" military target).
You say it is wrong. I would agree and personally would not do it.
But if instructed to do it the soldier would be breaking no law.
Soldiers who do this sort of thing do not believe themselves to be doing wrong.
The people commanding this sort of operation believe themselves to be justified in the wider context and therefore doing no wrong.
How is it that something that so obviously feels wrong to me does not inspire the same feeling of wrongness in all others if morality is absolute and we all know when we are doing wrong?
I appreciate why you do not like the idea of relative morality (though I disagree with your conclusions as to the consequences).
But just because you do not like the consequences as you see them does not mean that there MUST therefore be absolutes in existence.