Micah Goodman

The words of the Maimonides in the Book of Mormon: “Every commandment, whether it be a command or a warning, has its purpose, etc., to give a correct view that one must have an opinion about, whether according to the command itself or because it is necessary [shall be] for the removal of injustice or the acquisition of a higher quality, etc. Understand what we said in the opinions:
Since there may be cases where the commandment is to give a correct opinion, the purpose is nothing more, such as the opinion in particular, and the pre-existence of God, who is not a body. And there may be cases where that same opinion is necessary for the removal of injustice or the acquisition of a higher quality, such as the opinion that He will exalt Himself and will enrage the wrongdoer, as He said, ‘And I enrage and will kill him,’ etc., and such as the opinion that He will exalt Himself and immediately respond to the cry of the oppressed or the oppressed: And it came to pass that when he cried to Me, I heard that I am merciful.”
Goodman interpreted the words of Maimonides as meaning that he thinks that the האמבעם is not truly angry about the practice of oppression (this is not a האדה העד) and that the Torah said this so that they would not truly be robbed and oppressed (i.e., it is a necessary opinion).
I believe that these things have no basis in fact; there are opinions that are the goal and there are opinions that are correct, but it is important to have them in order to prevent oppression and oppression. What do you think?

Link to Goodman's statement
https://youtu.be/_H-pC4fWOGs?t=724

Of course you are right. But as far as I remember, the Rambam also has a term that talks about opinions that are not correct and are only intended to achieve some practical goal (I forgot the terminology he uses. I am not familiar with the Rambam).

I was really angry with him. How did he write a book about the moon?!
This is a mistake that represents a lot because he has an agenda and he will interpret everything according to it.

Do you think God is angry? What does it look like? It is clear that the meaning of God's anger is punishment. And it is written in the verses that He is angry to strengthen the threat, what is the problem with that?
Micah says that a God who punishes is not God because anger is a departure from equilibrium and it cannot be that God is out of equilibrium.
The conclusion is not related to the assumptions. The assumption that God is not supposed to be out of equilibrium and therefore there is no concept of anger like we have is a logical assumption. From here to saying that God does not punish, I do not understand how he did it (it is possible to punish without getting angry and going out of equilibrium). We need to see what he really writes in his interpretation. Interviews separately and writing separately.
If anyone has his book, we would be happy to quote it.

Correction
Instead of “He has no idea”- “He has no idea”

I agree with you, that was my general intention.