Objections to Previous Post

So I promised that I'd provide some objections and my answers, so here I'll try.
Objection 1: If everything is in the past, excepting an infinitesimally small razor edge of time, referred to as the moment of action, or the true present, then what about emotion? How can we experience emotions? How can one "feel happy" or "be depressed" or "become angry" if the moment of action is fleeting and afterward all is past tense?
My reply: I believe that this reflects a misunderstanding of my philosophical proposition. Emotion is experienced in a time period. I am joyful for a few hours, say, or I am sad today and not yesterday. Experiencing emotion is like breathing: at a certain point of time, one is exhaling, and at another, one is inhaling, but simply because the moment of action is currently when I'm exhaling, it doesn't mean that I cannot be exhaling if I'm done moments later. Emotion is experienced over a time period, and, as such, emotions are quickly left behind; left in the past. One reading this might be angry, but as the moment of action moves forward, the anger will assuage, and soon it will be over.
Objection 2: Doesn't this mean that we cannot "be happy?" Does this mean that we are only happy for a limited amount of time, which is quickly left behind?
My reply: In a way, yes. We eventually die, and once we are dead, we cannot be happy, at least not in the way we conceive of happiness now. Yes, I admit that happiness as a theological concept is eternal and not to be passed over, but happiness in this life is limited. Once we are dead, we are no longer happy, in this life. However, we can strive to be happy for the rest of this life. As being an emotion, and as being contextualized in an ever-expanding past, the best we can hope to achieve is a life whose past has been mostly happy. We can be happy as the moment of action continues on, but eventually we die, and our mortal happiness comes to an end.
Objection 3: With no future, can we hope for anything?
My reply: Yes and no. I think that we cannot actually expect anything, as there are constantly new decisions affecting what we can and cannot do and what will or will not happen. Additionally, as the past grows, what we hoped for in the future quickly becomes part of the past.
However, I do think that hope has both theological necessity, and is necessary for maintaining human sanity. We can hope for the Coming of Christ. We can hope for a better world. We can hope to find an eternity of bliss after death. We can hope that all will be made well in the end. There is nothing wrong with this, and, in fact, there are many things right with this. However, these things mostly belong in the abstract future. We cannot expect Christ to come tomorrow. We cannot expect a better world at the end of the year. We cannot expect all will be made well within the next five years. However, we can hope that this will eventually happen, and for this reason, we ought to work to make it so. We ought to work for the world to be a better place. We ought to work to bring justice. We ought to "build the Kingdom in our midst." Hope gives us the motivation to do this. Hope gives us the reason to work for Christ. Hope gives us the happiness that we can experience in this life.
These are about the only objections I can thing of. If you think of another good one. Post it up, and I'll try to answer it.

A Philosophical musing

Bear with me here. I've been doing some philosophizing and I think I've come up with something. I don't know that it's new or unheard of, but I don't know of anyone who has come up with anything quite like it. I have not yet fully developed this philosophy yet, so bear with me (this may come over in a few different posts). I've run this by Alexa, and she followed it, though I didn't fully explain it, so I think there's some factuality to it.
To begin with, let me state that we view time in a completely arbitrary and unrealistic way. We think of time the way we think of space: we can traverse it. However, we often view it as a river, where it's going one way, but given the proper tools (a boat for a river, a time machine for time), we could go against the current. I think that this way of viewing time ignores reality.
There is no future. By this I don't mean that there will not be a May 21, 2010. I mean that there is no such thing as the future, as a reality. It is all potentiality. No one exists in the future, because there is no way we can go into it. If we were in the future, it would be the present. Likewise, if the future is always going to be after the present, there can be no way to reach "the future" because it will always be the present when it is achieved.
In this way, the idea of "future" is merely an abstract concept that we use to define time that has not yet occurred. There will indeed be a May 21, but by the time it is May 21, it is the present, and no longer the future. The future is like what is undiscovered: we can say that it is, but when we realize it, it is no longer a mystery.
Thus, future is an abstract term that we should give no credibility to, especially in regards to traveling to the future or future dwellers traveling to the present.
Secondly, the most true thing about time is that there is an ever expanding past. The past only gets larger and larger. What had been thought to be the future rapidly gets subsumed into the past quicker than one realizes that it is the present. It is currently 2:22 as I look at the clock, and by the time I finish this post, 2:22 will be in the past. Today will be in the past by the time anyone reads this (probably) and by the time I finish talking about this theory of mine, all of this discussion will be in the past.
In fact, all that we know is in the past. Everything we learn, we learned in the past. Everything we experienced was experienced in the fast. Everything that makes us who we are is a product of the past. Our past is really what shapes us.
The scary thing about this is that we cannot prevent the past from expanding. Childhood is in the past, and the only thing we have from it is memories. My time at Notre Dame is in the past, and all I have there is memories. And the past just continues to expand. We cannot freeze it, we cannot prevent it from getting bigger, we cannot even delay its expansion. Before we know it, our entire lives will be in the past.
I just graduated from Notre Dame on Sunday, and as the day went on, I couldn't help but feel alienated that as I was experiencing all these goodbyes, ceremonies, and moments of celebration, they were all rapidly being added to the ever-expanding past. No sooner did I get my diploma than I was already done with that. No sooner was my degree conferred upon me than I was no longer a student. It is not something that can be prevented, delayed or resisted. The past only continues to grow and leaves us only with its memories.
Third. There is a present, but it is infinitesimally small. It is a razor edge. It is the moment of action. Whatever is occurring in present tense, must be occurring at the exact moment of action in order for it to be truly present tense. Thus, I can say I am aging, because that continues to happen at the moment of action, but if I say that I am working now, in no time at all, that is over and it is in the past. The moment of action is like the decimal point that prevents .999 repeating from being 1. It is so small it is undetectable. One cannot measure it in seconds, minutes or hours, because those are only lengths of time that are quickly subsumed into the past. The moment of action exists only on the edge of the ever-expanding past. It creates the past. It takes the abstract future reality and then past reality. This is the only present.
This is about all I have conceived of for now. My next post will probably answer objections to this theory. Thanks for reading.