The words of Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed, Part III: “Every commandment, whether it was a positive command or a prohibition, has as its purpose, etc., the imparting of a correct belief that one ought to hold, whether by virtue of the command itself or because it is necessary for the removal of injustice or the acquisition of a noble trait, etc. Understand what we have said regarding beliefs: For sometimes the purpose of the commandment is the imparting of a correct belief, and nothing more, such as the belief in God’s unity, the eternity of God, and that He is not corporeal. And sometimes that belief is necessary for the removal of injustice or the acquisition of a noble trait, such as the belief that He, may He be exalted, becomes angry with one who commits injustice, as it says, ‘My anger will blaze forth and I will kill,’ etc., and such as the belief that He, may He be exalted, immediately answers the cry of the oppressed or the wronged: ‘And if he cries out to Me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.'”
Goodman explained Maimonides to mean that he thinks God does not really get angry over injustice (so this is not a “correct belief”), and the Torah said this in order that people really not rob and commit violence—that is, that this is a necessary belief.
I think there is no basis for this at all, and that the explanation is that there are beliefs that are the goal, and beliefs that are correct but important to instill in order to prevent wrongdoing and oppression. What do you think?

Link to Goodman’s remarks

You’re obviously right. But if I remember correctly, Maimonides also has a term for beliefs that are not correct and are intended only to achieve some practical goal (I forgot the term he uses. I’m not well-versed in the Guide for the Perplexed).

I was really angry at him. How did he write a book on the Guide for the Perplexed?!
It’s a mistake that represents a lot, because he has an agenda and he’ll interpret everything according to it.

Do you think the Holy One, blessed be He, gets angry? What would that even look like? Clearly, the meaning of God’s anger is punishment. And the verses say that He gets angry in order to reinforce the threat, so what’s the problem with that?
Micah says that a God who punishes is not God, because anger is a loss of equilibrium, and it cannot be that God loses equilibrium.
The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. The premise that God should not lose equilibrium, and therefore that He does not have a concept of anger like ours, is a logical premise. But from there to saying that God does not punish—I don’t understand how he got there (you can punish without being angry and losing equilibrium). We need to see what he actually writes in his commentary. Interviews are one thing and writing is another.
If anyone has his book, we’d be happy to see a quotation.

Correction:
instead of “he has no concept” — “there is no such concept with Him”

I agree with you; that was my general intention.