Are you proposing that God specified a cleansing routine for masturbation even though it would be followed by an execution (if the assertion that it is wicked holds)?
I have listed below the reasons why the claim that God abhors vasectomies cannot be validated with Scripture. Church doctrine is addressed below this list.
1. Cleansing routines for all alone emissions (as opposed to with a woman or night-time emissions). Is masturbation (or spilling seed) really forbidden then? There is no Law forbidding it.
2. No cleansing routines for forbidden practices (ie, homosexuality or beastiality). Combine 1 and 2 and conclude that masturbation (spilling seed) isn’t a forbidden encounter.
3. Reuben and Lot’s daughters were not destroyed by God even though they violated what would later become Law. Was Onan’s sin therefore the spilled seed of which there is no law? Why did God destroy him when He didn’t ever specify a rule against it yet He did condemn sleeping with father’s wife and sleeping with daughters and didn’t destroy Reuben or Lot’s daughters?
4. There are myriad examples of God dealing harshly and immediately with individual pride (Aaron and Miriam opposing Moses, Korah opposing Moses, Satan falling from heaven, Herod not glorifying God). As opposed to a distinct lack of God dealing harshly and immediately with individual sins of a sexual nature culminating with Jesus’ merciful treatment of the woman adulteress (neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more). He also prevented sexual encounters with Sarah and Rebekah at various times. Therefore the conclusion that Onan was guilty of the sin of Pride rather than a sin of a sexual nature.
5. Emasculation (eunuchs and the mutilated) became admissable in the assembly with Jesus’ declaration echoed by Paul.
6. Mutilators of the flesh were those that relied on overly strict observance of the Law for salvation. Thus Paul’s recitation of his previous strict moral code and how utterly useless it was for access to grace by faith. The context is about grace vs. observance of Law, not sins of a sexual nature.
7. Body as the temple of HS not to be united with prostitutes - based on context it is not a reference to vasectomies, masterbation, emasculation or eunuchs.
Therefore, the only argument left is based on traditional Church doctrine. Is this a biblically acceptable practrice (maintaining doctrine that is extra-Biblical)?
Probably most important is the example of the Pharisees who were masters at using the Law and the Prophets to fit their notion of righteousness. Because they were in the position of spiritual leaders, they controlled access to God and were harshly condemned by Christ for this practice. The practice of creating rules and regulations based on human tradition rather than on God’s Word which resulted in preventing access to God by the common man (Mark 7:6-8). They killed Him for pointing this out. Paul warned the Colossians about arguments based on human traditions (Col 2:8).
My conclusion is therefore that the claim of God abhoring vasectomies is not based on scripture but on doctrine passed down as tradition. This practice is not sound Biblically and is in danger of being condemned as harshly as the similar practice of the Pharisees.
1 AND 2 The Catholic view that I have read is that Lev 15:16 and the Deut. verse are not a situation of one meaning nocturnal emissions and one being self-induced. BOTH relate to nocturnal emissions. Your logic is that since there are different cleansing rituals then they must be different “offences”. Both cleansing rituals may apply to the same “offence”.
3 Our God is a merciful God.
4 What about Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the last verse in revelation identifying homosexuals as not going to Heaven?
5 and 6 “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it” (Mt 19:12). The first two cases mentioned are becoming a eunuch due to factors outside their power. The third case refers to celibacy, not self-mutilation.
7 This refers to anything that defiles the body - not just one type of defilement.