That is actually very clever. I wonder if one could do this for other arguments. The form would be something along these lines, perhaps?
Then one has the enemy-tribe argue for proposition 1.
We do see theologians try to respond to these sorts of issues. Look at the many attempts to deal with {fate, free will, existence of evil, God's omniscience,God's omnipotence, God's omnibenevolence}. We don't get deep controversies. Instead we get theologians competing with how sophisticated they can make arguments to try to have their cake and eat it too. Meanwhile in almost any tribe(whether united by religion, politics or something else), the vast majority of members go about their days without giving any serious thought to whether any of their tribes standard beliefs contradict each other.
I've offered theologians a new argument they can develop against physicalism. Should they pursue it, we may actually get some useful work out of them. See here.
(The intelligence explosion animation was constructed from Anna Salamon's slides for her Minicamp x-risk presentation.)