For a non-physicist, your knowledge of 4-vector spacetime is remarkable. Kudos.
Thanks, I assure you it's an accident.

I think the first part is simply a definition thing. When I talk about position in space-time, that is different than me talking about position in space.
Ok, but if we're talking about motion, well you're disregarding an important coordinate when you only talk of space, and this changes the subject from "always moving" to "potentially at rest". That's a profound difference. I don't feel we can accurately describe motion in 3 dimensions alone, it's just useful to for real world considerations. But we cannot say something is "at rest" and be accurate, any more than we can say I'm "at rest" while I relax and smoke a spliff as a fly around the sun. I can see that I am sort of "at rest", but I know I am not, and never will be.

You're right that I would have guessed that they are the same thing, but intuition is an untrustworthy tool in science. It guides us, but we must remain vigilant to not trust intuition when an experiment can be performed instead.
Fair enough. This is where I'm liberated by simply being a layman... I don't care for vigilance, I prefer intuition. I'm approaching this more from a philosophical pov than sceintific. I'm quite comfortable saying they're the same thing.

Gravitation is explained by SR, not GR. Einstein explained gravitation without any accelerations.
You're probably right, however I understood SR to be essentially an approximation of GR, in that SR deals with negligible curvature... ie it assumes no curvature, which is still only an approximation of the most remote region (in terms of mass) in the universe. GR fixes these approximations. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like I've studied either beyond their respective wikipedia pages and the occasional youtube video. I kinda bunch the two together and call it GR (I know, it's sloppy), I mean SR wasn't even called SR until he published GR.

I'm pretty sure the moon still rotates in GR, with it's axial rotational period equal to it's orbital rotational period.
Yeah when I read that back I thought it was probably a poor understanding of the mechanism, but I decided to not edit it out and see what you replied.

Otherwise the fact that the Earth is not tidally locked with the sun would mean we are crashing into the sun.
I guess my point was that the moon should crash because it is tidally locked. It has to constantly "turn" to face the Earth as it moves through space. How is this not acceleration? It would be if this "turn" was a deviation from a straight line.

Photons do not move freely through time.
No, they are frozen in time. Assuming the photon has eyes and a watch, does it experience time like we do, but instead observes a flat universe?

I thought your position was that the future must exist, else how can we move into it?
No, it WILL exist. My position is that the future is soon-to-be-expanded space. It doesn't exist yet, but it will do.

At any rate, my position is that whether or not the future exists before it is the present is unmeasurable, so beyond the purview of physics.
But not philosophy. Suck it, physics.

Are we there, yet?
Never!