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.