No they don't become rational, FK. They are accepted in spite of our inability to understand them. Thus, we accept resurrection of dead people. Is that rational? Our reason rejects it, but we accept it spiritually. Is walking on water rational? Of course it isn't. But we accept that +Peter walked on water; we believe it did happen although our brain is screaming "no!"
Usually behind all these fancy miracles that are hard to believe and impossible to understand, lies a divine message the story is meant to convey. Ignoring the fancy details (the devil is in the details!), you can capture the meaning of that message without resorting to superstition.
No they don't become rational, FK. They are accepted in spite of our inability to understand them. Thus, we accept resurrection of dead people. Is that rational? Our reason rejects it, but we accept it spiritually.
Actually, with the premise of an omnipotent God, my reason is just fine with resurrections and other miracles. I believe these things literally happened and were not Biblical metaphors. They are perfectly reasonable and make perfect sense, given an all-powerful God. To rationally hold otherwise is to deny omnipotence.
Usually behind all these fancy miracles that are hard to believe and impossible to understand, lies a divine message the story is meant to convey. Ignoring the fancy details (the devil is in the details!), you can capture the meaning of that message without resorting to superstition.
Why do you think some of these are superstition, and never really happened? Do you have reason to believe God couldn't perform them, or that He wouldn't perform them? I have none. Does 3 days in the belly of a fish offend your reason? Child's play for an omnipotent God. It is perfectly reasonable.