^
Yes I like the idea that Jesus wouldn't have been too hard on "heathens" who were kinder than some believers are. Scripture reckons he cured that lame bloke because his mates lowered him through the roof of the house he was in to get his attention, and he said their faith had healed him. Now those blokes might have been thinking "this probably won't work, but we've got no better plan," so this faith requirement might not be so much a matter of what you believe. That story and that thought about it made me feel a lot better when I was a kid and the teacher had me worried that I'd not go to heaven because I suspected scripture had a lot of lies in it.
I don't see myself as exactly a heathen because I think it's one of those terms that only makes sense from a Christian perspective, so to me it's pretty meaningless. I'd just say I was secular. I gather it's been used in the past as a pejorative label but these days not so much. Your soap-box chap sounds to me like he was a bit backward looking. He might have just meant it as a neutral thing, but my intuition tells me he was one of those nasty old farts who wants everybody to thing that unbelievers have got something the matter with them. People on soap boxes aren't usually very objective and nuanced in their output, and if it's not objective and nuanced, it's either propaganda rubbish or it's art. I can forgive it if it's art. Otherwise it can get me cross.