Trying to apply human logic and morality to a "God" morality idea is somewhat flawed in my opinion. The human morality scale is ultimately limited because on the whole it relies on extremes - good vs evil, positive vs negative, etc.
So what happens when you have acts which can be considered at both extremes? And not just slightly, but overwhelmingly? Our system breaks down completely, because what is the point of a "measuring system" which can give you both a wholly true and false reading? It'd be like measuring something and finding it's both 16cm and 25cm - not useful.
Then we would have to introduce a higher morality, defined not by contrast between extremes but instead an end goal - a more complicated and less monochromatic system. Basically, I think that when considering moral issues and bringing "God" morality into things, He is meant to be transcendent. It is quite possible that we simply cannot fathom His line of "thought" (using "thought" again loosely because it is a human term) and so ultimately it is a futile exercise.
Letting someone die or a nation die for instance may be an entirely necessary evil for some end result - and as per The Butterfly Effect principle, changing anything very slightly may bring about a much different end.
I dunno why I'm typing this but hey, just felt like giving my perspective on things. I'm agnostic, leaning towards the side of atheism: whether there is an ultimate creator, I do not know and there is no way for me to know. What I DO believe is that the human interpretation of God and the religious side is a wholly inaccurate representation. Human terms and ideas such as his omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are irreconciliable and artefacts such as the Bible cannot be trusted, similar to how one must be wary of all media when looking for an overall/political message.
Just my boring views.