Yes, I agree with your main point and I hope it didn’t come off as if I was cheating with logic in my post. You are absolutely right in the sense that the God construct is more to relieve your own anxiety about communication rather than actually make the other understand.
But…the only place I would slightly differ is that I believe with the God construct, disassembling your language to choose the right words/phrases is, on the contrary, a necessity! I don’t mean to use God here in the Marxist sense where He becomes an opium and dissolves my responsibility — I think an honest knowledge of God (and religious frameworks) pushes you to engage with the second half of the equation because that is how your Will/Intention is tested/manifested. If you desire to honestly communicate, in a very Marxist way (ironically :P), you must materially do the effort to ‘try your best’ in order to have a genuine faith in God to carry over your message despite your human shortcomings. To have faith in God without that effort is a sign that you do not genuinely desire understanding, it’s you shoving off the responsibility, it’s communicative ‘laziness’ (spiritual-only God frameworks may allow you that, most religious frameworks will not).
That being said, I do understand and value your critique considering that practically speaking, many people do use God as an excuse to opt out of the labour that is required for understanding.