Interesting post.
In theology Wesley defined "sin" as "willful transgression of a known law of God." So, an act could be a sin or not, based on the actor's state of knowledge or intent.
Many logicians attribute the prefix "It is true that ..." or "It is the case that ..." to all declarative statements. That permits a paradox to become instead a simple contradiction.
In American courts, there is a permissible disclaimer of "upon information and belief" that allows a witness to tell things as s/he knows them without saddling them with proving the truth of their statements.
If we take the liar's paradox as [possibly flawed] informal conversation, we get some added "outs" from the paradox.