We are not arguing relative responsibility, we were talking about "God's immutable laws." When we place "doubtful things" superior to these immutable laws (I'd call them apodictic), then we always run into this sort of "dilemma."
Nope. You can't reason your way to a command. God's commands (apodictic laws) are worded such that you cannot miss them: "You shall love the LORD your God..." and "You shall not steal." They are not circumstantial, CM example of the "justifiable stealing" of napkins notwithstanding. There is no instance in which stealing can be justified.
Nope. That would be failing to "love the LORD your God..." - in direct violation (by omission) of his apodictic law.
It cannot be overstated: do not make law out of "doubtful things" - things not expressly, explicitly declared as apodictic law.
Just to make sure I understand you fully, tell me if the following accurately summarizes your argument:
Stealing is forbidden by immutable apodicitc law, yet it not required by apodictic law to procure food for a starving sibling (or otherwise intervene to save the life of an innocent)
So in a situation where one has to choose between following the mandate to not steal and one's obligation to save the life of an innocent when one has the power to do so, the moral choice is to not steal, because apodictic laws (not stealing) trump "doubtful things" (doing what you can to save a life)