I appreciate the comprehensive analysis and commentary. I'll just pick up on two points.

It's not an "obvious strawman" to force the theist to characterize God clearly as either a person or an impersonal object. It's up to the theist to avoid fudging the issue and dodging that dichotomy with obfuscatory mystical gibberish.

If comparing divine personhood to the human kind is a "category mistake," in what sense is God a person? If he's not literally a person, then theism is false. The theist is committed to saying that nature's source is a person. If he's not a person in a meaningful sense, then theism becomes as meaningless as God's disanalogous pseudo-personhood.

The truths of God's personality might be independent of human judgment but they wouldn't be independent of God's will, so they'd be subjective rather than objective. And there are no necessary truths in metaphysics. That's a vestige of Scholastic naivety about reason.

Second, you say Hell results from the separation from the source of life, but God would be the source of death too. The monotheist's characterization of God is hopelessly incoherent, but my point was that if the theist's meaning of life is to submit to God so that God is ultimately a tyrant, we may have a moral obligation to resist God. The theist goes back and forth between emphasizing God's love and his inflexible "justice." But if God declares the difference between right and wrong by fiat, being good in God's sense would be a mere sign of slavish loyalty, like how a pet dog must obey its master's commands, regardless of how absurd they might be. That servitude isn't a dignified life.