What you seem to be doing, iano, is whittling down what we have to do, as opposed to what God does, to almost nothing. However, you can't whittle it down all the way. If you did, the doctrines of sin, salvation, heaven, and hell wouldn't make much sense.
You say this:
In fact there are no conditions.
Then you say this:
All a person has to do is not say No.
You've just given a condition.
You also seem to be saying that we should pay attention to our emotions not our reason:
But the call doesn't happen at rational level. It happens at heart (or soul) level.
Of course, we are not supposed to let all our emotions dictate our actions, only certain ones. And we pick out the certain ones that are in keeping with the moral system that's written in our hearts. Of course we can't prove that our moral system is The Moral System.
All we can do is point to its near-universality, like this:
Whilst nihilism cannot say there is anything objectively wrong with sex with 4 year olds it is interesting to note an this extreme example where child sex abusers actually don't see anything wrong with their behaviour.
Its near-universality does not prove that the rule is objective any more than the near-universal belief that the earth was stationary in the past prove that the earth is in fact stationary. However, certain near-universal feelings that we have do suggest that people have perhaps a "moral faculty" as one has a rational faculty, and that some people's moral faculties work better than other's. And as we intuit the assumptions of geometry, we also intuit the rightness or wrongness of certain actions. There are all sorts of ways we can interpret our general abhorrence of certain actions without invoking God.
But let us return to your idea that we should pay more attention to certain feelings than we should the results of Reason. This goes back to that game of God I spoke of earlier. Here we have a world that, on the face of it, operates by chance. By "chance," of course, I do not mean that there are no "laws of nature," but we understand that a law of nature is just a description of what things always do.
For example, a very nice person has a car wreck and is hideously maimed. What caused this car wreck? This nice person's brakes failed. What caused the failure of the brakes? Well, during its manufacture, somebody assembling the brakes forgot to insert a certain screw properly. Why? He had a headache that day and so was rather careless in his normally meticulous procedure. What caused the headache? He has had a tendency for bad headaches ever since he was a child, and he forgot to pick up his medicine from the pharmacy. What caused him to forget? Well, he was very excited about this young lady he met at church the night before, couldn't get her out of his mind, and so the idea of picking up the medicine didn't occur to him until after the pharmacy had closed. Why was he excited about the young lady he met, which caused him to forget his medicine, which caused him to have a headache, which caused him to improperly insert the screw, which caused the brakes to fail, which caused the car wreck, which caused the nice young person to be hideously maimed? There is no end to these questions. This is what I mean by life operating by chance.
This is the way life appears on its surface, iano. And to combat that idea, we are supposed to be influenced by certain strong moral feelings that occur to us from time to time which are supposed to let us know FOR CERTAIN that this world of chance we experience day after day doesn't really exist, that it's really all planned out in secret--except of course for the actions of our "free will"--by the Almighty. And we are supposed to believe that--based on some "feelings" we have.
™ Version 4.2