Do you not see that Allah is He Whom do glorify all those who are in the heavens and the earth, and the (very) birds with expanded wings? He knows the prayer of each one and its glorification, and Allah is Cognizant of what they do. (The Light 24.41)
Bible quotes don't really answer my question. He made it clear by inspiring someone to write something in a book? There's hundreds of different holy books in the world; if only one of them was correct then why hasn't God made the Bible stand out in some way?
Though admittedly I have never read all the way through any other religious text other than the Old and New Testaments (such as the Qur'an), when I read the Bible it
did stand out to me.
Why has nothing supernatural happened recently?
How do you define supernatural?
Something that you cannot prove or disprove using methodological naturalism.
Something that disagrees with science?
Under these conditions, I reject the premise of the question.
Where can I buy a chocolate Easter Jesus?
At what point does a Christian not become a Christian because they are too bad. No True Scotsman logic is very common, there is even a use of the fallacy for those militia men (link below), but where exactly should we draw the line for non-Christians? I mean, Nazis genuinely believed what they were doing was for a better society, but clearly you would associate them as non-Christians because they killed so many people; these militia people were only planning on carrying out a killing, so who knows if you will still accept them based on your made up criteria. Both of these cases are where people think what they are doing is right, yet when a republican senator cheats on his wife, he knows for a fact that what he was doing was bad and yet does it regardless, but surely that isn't a criteria for getting into heaven by your particular standards. What about Stem Cell research? A scientist may be killing thousands of innocent souls, but s/he is doing for the sake of society, would this instance count towards going to hell by your particular standards? Why do you think your particular standards are right anyways? I don't think the holy spirit provided a list of things that signal whether or not it exists within you.
He most definitely did:
Galatians 5:16-26
16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
That being said, I tried to be careful to differentiate between habitual sin and single acts of sin. I am a Christian, and though I have the Holy Spirit in me I am still capable of committing sin (read 1 John 2:1-2). My flesh was crucified with Christ, so sin as a habit is defeated by the Holy Spirit. I don't know where to draw the line between habitual sin and a single act of sin, I think that the Lord deals with us at a personal level and it is difficult to define sin along clear-cut terms as it may vary from one to another.
That being said, I think for things such as genocide and molesting children, we can easily say that no Christian would do something like that, because it implies such an egregious act of rebellion away from the will of the Lord that if the person had in fact accepted the Holy Spirit into his life, he would be incapable of committing such crimes. The no true Scotsman fallacy does not apply, as it assumes that the Scotsman is still capable of committing acts of murder. A better statement would be "Surely a Scotsman would never be a coconut", in which case it is true.