The question "I am [who/whom] G-d made me" should be reopened.
It's about "prescriptive" grammar, so the answer is not intuitively obvious. The example sentence combines two environments that are notorious for causing trouble: the case of the relative pronoun who/whom and case after a form of the copula.
The question also touches on several interesting aspects of the grammar of actual English, so it shouldn't be closed just because you dislike prescriptive grammar.
It addresses the following points:
In sentences of the form "Taking on responsibility made you an adult" where we have a subject, an object, and a nominal complement, what is the case of the nominal complement? Or more broadly, what is its grammatical role? This is an interesting syntax question in its own right.
None of the answers to "What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly?" discuss this particular grammatical environment. They do offer general rules of thumb like "substitute another pronoun for who and whom." Doing that in this case gives "God made me me" or "God made me I." "God made me me" sounds better, so is the question answered by this simple rule?
It seems reasonable to me to doubt this. For one thing, online examples that are similar to this often show some odd punctuation that casts doubt on the role of the pronoun here. Often there is a comma or ellipsis before the pronoun: "What made me, me", "everything that made me ... me". Sometimes, what appears to be an "object pronoun" is capitalized or put in quotation marks: "What events in my life had made me, Me?", "the things that made me 'me' ". In other words, the "me" here often seems to be treated as a noun rather than a pronoun, and in that case it would not inflect for case and would be useless as evidence for the "who"/"whom" rule. (A parallel case: we say "The Me I Want to Be", not "The I I want to Be," but prescriptive grammar still prescribes the nominative form in the phrase "who I want to be.")
After doing this research, I would guess that the nominal complement in sentences like these is in fact objective case, but it is not exactly obvious to me. I don't think the question should be closed unless you think this is an obvious topic. It's further complicated by the fact that the example sentence "I am [who/whom] G-d made me" is a compound sentence that starts with a nominative pronoun followed by a form of the copula.
Another topic: When is it grammatical to replace the nominal complement with a fronted relative pronoun? Does it make a difference if the pronoun is who(m) or what? The answer to (When to use what or who) is certainly relevant here, as it implicitly assumes that this is grammatical in some cases. However, a comment beneath that question says
"I don't much like usages like He is who he is [...] it's still much less common than He is what he is" and references a Google ngram chart to support this statement. In addition, many comments beneath the "I am [who/whom] G-d made me" question suggest that the sentence is not grammatical. If the sentence is not grammatical, why not? How is it different from the definitely grammatical "I'm what you made me" or the apparently grammatical "I'm who you made me"?