No, because until relatively recently, most followers of Christian religions couldn't actually read the Bible. Or anything at all, for that matter; reading and writing were not universal skills at the time and were actually pretty rare and valuable.
The scriptures weren't meant or intended for mass consumption. They were intended to keep the PRIESTHOOD consistent and on-message, and the priesthood was the effective political power of Judea. The Torah wasn't a spiritual guide book so much as it was
the constitution of their government. It's not a "slave mentality" at all, in a lot of cases it's LITERAL slavery imposed by the priests who also happen to be in charge of everything.
What's interesting is, the obvious contradictions between different parts of the Torah are actually built in deliberately over the years and decades as one political party tried to undermine the power of the others. There's a fantastically elaborate interplay between the priesthood and the prophets over both political, familial and spiritual life. The priests favored power of the central government and obedience, the prophets favored individual liberty and ruthlessness towards foreigners (at a time when the priests were both trying really hard to not piss off the Assyrian Empire while also consolidating their wealth and political power at the expense of the poor).
Privately and individually, if people didn't like part of the law, they just didn't follow it; in fact, a fantastic amount of scripture is actually devoted to this very subject, with the priests and prophets alike bitching about how so many people totally ignore the law. The Jews didn't even fully embrace monotheism until after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and they suddenly had a very pressing need for ideological and cultural unity. The only thing forcing them to obey their laws was the priesthood and the judges acting as their enforcers, so the people did exactly what they could get away with as often as they wanted to. That much hasn't changed in 3000 years: if the people don't like part of scripture, they just ignore it.
Islam takes it even further, as the very meaning of Islam is to surrender your will to Allah. It is a glorification of being a slave to God and being in obedience to God.
And it's still very much the same: if a Muslim doesn't like some part of scripture or if it disagrees with his nature, he'll usually just ignore it.
Obedience is not morality, and obedience is what these religions push.
And yet obedience is strictly voluntary, especially in the case of organized religions, for the simple fact that God doesn't have any actual power and can't force people to do anything they don't already want to do. This is why huge numbers of believers of every religion manage to ignore the mountains and mountains of complete nonsense their religion tells them to do because "Why the fuck would I want to do that?" is just as easy to say as "Why the fuck would God want me to do that?"
And that is why it so easily causes and catalyzes atrocity, bigotry, and hatred.
It doesn't, though. If a Muslim wants to shoot random people on a public bus, he'll do it. He'll find a justification for it, somehow, because human nature requires that we convince ourselves every day that our actions are, in some way, justified or at least justifiable. In the end, his basic proclivities towards violence will win out no matter what religion he claims as his own; the only thing in changes is what slogans he shouts when he decides to pull the trigger.
