Divine Justice and Mercy, which coordinate perfectly in the counsels of 'God' could never pronounce the fate of eternal conscious torment or suffering upon any one of its offspring. Infinite Love is much more wise and resourceful, and the conclusion-effect of the full embrace of whole-hearted iniquity or 'sin' is 'death'. 'Death' here is truly 'death' in every sense of the word.
I've usually held a 'universalist' belief, that all souls will ultimately come back into harmony with God, however,...if free will is honored to its ultimate end, this could include death. Again,....this is one viewpoint presented by the UB, and other like schools of thought...about 'soul-death', or 'eternal sleep'.
This was a fairly typical outlook among the Zoroastrians, mentioned earlier among your texts. Their judgment day involved a cleansing of the wicked by fire and molten metal. In other words something painful, we are lead to imagine, but only a temporary purifying process before being reunited with Ahura Mazda.
In my personal view, the Christian hell is something of a corruption of the original concept. There's absolutely nothing about it that's specifically Abrahamic, after all. For the Greeks, it was tartarus- which took different forms. Hesiod's tartarus was not Plato's tartarus, but the latter fairly resembled hell. There was also the Orphic hell where people wallowed in mud. There is also the Norse Hel, and the dragon Nidhogg who gnaws the corpses of traitors and murderers. Lots and lots of hells,basically. My own Slavic tradition has similar notions- the pagan Slavs actually seem to have inherited the Persian word for heaven [(PSl. *rāji 'heaven' (Old Church Slavonic rajь, Polish raj, Russian raj) < Iranian *rāy- (Avestan rāy)] from the east prior to contact with Christianity. The really shallow, unenlightened thing about the Christian hell is that it's often treated, at least in our culture, as a destination for the incredulous rather than the amoral.
"The Jewish traditions of heaven and hell and the doctrine of devils as recorded in the Hebrew scriptures, while founded on the lingering traditions of Lucifer and Caligastia, were principally derived from the Zoroastrians during the times when the Jews were under the political and cultural dominance of the Persians. Zoroaster, like the Egyptians, taught the "day of judgment," but he connected this event with the end of the world.
As much as I appreciate the "shout out" to Zoroastrianism (a faith that could teach a lot of modern monotheists a thing or two about the development of religious ideas throughout history) in the Urantia papers, it still raises the question of why religion seems to be constantly reinventing itself- and now again with this new revelation. Many of these ideas have had countless permutations already, so one imagines God could have gotten the whole message across before now. There's sort of this idea that always shows up of the new revelation being "more complete" or "more sophisticated" than what came before. Or that ancient man just couldn't fathom the true religion in its full complexity. but if you look at older religions they *are* often fairly complex and complete, with developed eschatology and everything. There is no hint or suggestion of gaps, or that more is yet to come. In the same way, these Urantia papers seem to suggest that they are complete, but who knows how many more revelations will come after it claiming they are not?