I just made an "edit" section on my original post, which explains my argument in more depth. Perhaps it will help you understand what I'm getting at better.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

You're looking back at the value of outward logic and trying to compare it to the liar's paradox, but you can't do the opposite, saying that liar's paradox has value like that, just as you said, "The paradox only comes when you take it out of context", yes, out of context from outward logic, trying to apply it to inward logic, the very structure of logic and statements itself, it just does not fit in that place, only resulting in a logical reflection.

So your argument is to use that reasoning to explain why logic and statements don't require faith? Or are you not actually arguing against my explanation? Because the way I see your argument is that you do understand that logic can't actually go into that direction, of understanding the inward value of statements, which is just proving my point of seeing the liar's paradox as a reflection of logic, not as something real.

And? Just what is your point?