It sounds like you are arguing with me, but everything you said is agreeing with what I said, so I am not sure what to say here.
Your second point is:
> But the other thing to point out is that this question presumes an old idea about the passage of time, which is that things happen in a sequence A, B, C, D, ... and that if you are at C then D "has not happened yet". But if you look at relativity, this appears to be a naïve viewpoint.
Again, this is true but irrelevant to the question at hand, due to causality.
I claim that both points are irrelevant. How is that agreeing with you?