You completely fail to understand. Feelings have nothing to do with it. I'll try to break it down.
The premise of God allows a rational argument to be made for morality.
I hardly think so. I used to think so, but changed my mind.
There are two possibilities:
I used to think 1 was the case. I found the Bible really supports 2. Consider homicide. We can give an exception for the case of self-defense, which seems reasonable (I would include execution of certain criminals under this category). But what about killing someone who has done no wrong to you or others? If we're arguing based upon God's unchanging character, God holds human life sacred and would abhor that as murder. But God ordered the Hebrews to invade Canaan and wipe out the Canaanites to the last child. They killed men, women, children, and babies. God would not order anyone to do anything that is evil, according to Christianity, so when God ordered the Hebrews to commit infanticide it must have been a good act, as blessed as feeding an orphan. This is completely at odds with the idea that morality comes from God's unchanging nature.
The other option is that what is good is what God considers good at that time. This removes much of the moral significance from sins against others because it strips from them their unchanging inherent rights--what right to life? Infanticide is no longer a sin against the person you kill and against God, it's just a sin against God because at that time it's his whim to consider infanticide wrong. Good and evil become just a checklist. The nature of God is unknowable, and possibly would be quite a surprise to his followers.
This situation is even worse than the situation of an atheist or agnostic, because at least the atheist or agnostic is free to accept as valid what they think is proper treatment of themselves. If it is wrong to murder only at some times and good and blessed to do so at others, then you cannot validly claim that there is a certain constant way that others should treat you. Humans become essentially worthless.
These two competing views of morality are in unspoken conflict in most forms of Christianity.
I do not want others to hurt me.
I am not more valuable than any other Homo sapiens.
Therefore rationally I should treat others just as well as I treat myself.
____________________
It doesn’t hold together. What does your desire not to be hurt have to do with the value of other people? And what does your desire not to be hurt, and your view that people are equally valuable (who sets that standard? God?) has nothing to do with how you treat them. Why shouldn’t you steal from someone equally valuable to you if it doesn’t hurt you? If you are just as good as they are, why shouldn’t you have the nice things they have?
Your argument regarding murder is also weak. It breaks down in the word murder. God does not command us not to kill. He commands us not to murder.